JL.^ 

-«,   '^jT^i-  IH""^ 
*§.  . 
,*d 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 
JAMES  M.  BECK 


"It  is  important,  likewise,  that  the  habits  of  thinking 
in  a  free  country  should  inspire  caution  in  those  entrusted 
with  its  administration  to  confine  themselves  within  their 
respective  constitutional  spheres.  The  spirit  of  encroachment 
tends  to  consolidate  the  powers  of  all  the  departments  in  oney 
and  thus  to  create,  whatever  the  form  of  the  government, 
a  real  despotism.  *  *  *  Let  there  be  no  change  by- 
usurpation;  for  though  this  may  be  in  one  instance,  the 
instrument  of  good,  it  is  the  customary  weapon  by  which 
free  governments  are  destroyed" 

WASHINGTON'S  FAREWELL  ADDRESS. 


THE  PASSING  OF 
THE  NEW  FREEDOM 


BY 

JAMES   M.  BECK 

FORMERLY  ASSISTANT  ATTORNEY   GENERAL   OF  THE 

UNITED  STATES 

AUTHOR.  OF  "THE  EVIDENCE  IN  THE  CASE,"  "THE 
WA&  AND  HUMANITY,"  AND  "THE  RECKONING*' 


Moribus  antiquis  staty 
res  Romana  virisque. 


NEW  ^SiT  YORK 
GEORGE  H.  DORAN  COMPANY 


COPYRIGHT,  1920, 
BY  GEORGE  H.  DORAN  COMPANY 


PRINTED  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA 


TO 
HENRY  CABOT    LODGE 

SCHOLAR,  STATESMAN,  PATRIOT 

WHOSE  RECENT   SERVICE   IN  THE   MAINTENANCE 

OF  AMERICAN  INSTITUTIONS  WILL  BE  HIS 

TITLE  CLEAR  TO  THE  APPROVAL 

OF  POSTERITY 


Justum,  et  tenacem  propositi  virum 
Non  civium  ardor  prava  jubentium. 

HORACE 


4 £4 524 


FOREWORD 

I  need  offer  no  apology  for  this  frank  discussion 
of  the  essential  nature  of  President  Wilson's  policies. 
They  are  now  on  trial  before  the  great  quadrennial 
assize  of  the  American  people.  No  public  official  is 
above  honest  criticism,  and,  without  such  criticism, 
democracy  would  cease  to  be. 

Moreover,  Woodrow  Wilson  now  belongs  to  his- 
tory. His  complex  personality  and  his  world-wide 
policies  will  be  the  subject  of  acute  discussion  for  gen- 
erations to  come.  To  tell  the  truth  about  them,  as  one 
sees  the  truth — and  who  now  sees  it,  except  as  through 
a  glass  darkly  ? — is  the  highest  duty  of  citizenship.  In 
this  spirit,  this  book  has  been  written. 

If  I  am  criticized  for  discussing  grave  political  ques- 
tions in  dialogue  form,  let  me  reply  that  while  these 
imaginary  conversations  are,  in  part,  satirical  in  spirit, 
nothing  was  further  from  my  intention  than  "to  set  on 
some  quantity  of  barren  spectators  to  laugh."  Shaw, 
Landor,  Gobineaux  and  Erasmus  did  not  disdain  to 
employ  the  dramatic  dialogue  as  a  literary  medium,  and 
indeed  the  greatest  single  product  of  the  human  mind 
in  all  the  ages  seems  to  me  to  be  the  Book  of  Job, 
where  the  great  riddle  of  existence  is  discussed  with 
unequalled  power  and  sublimity  in  the  imaginary  con- 
versation of  the  man  of  Ur  and  his  three  would-be 
comforters,  who  proved  to  be  somewhat  irritating  dis- 
putants. 

Even  a  later  age  could  not  resist  the  temptation  to 
[vii] 


FOREWORD 

break  into  this  most  wonderful  discussion  by  the  inter- 
polation of  the  character  of  Elihu. 

An  acknowledgment  is  due  Mr.  Henry  Litchfield 
West  for  valuable  suggestions  and  careful  revision  of 
the  proofs  and  to  the  courtesy  of  the  publishers  of 
The  North  American  Review  and  The  National  Re- 
view in  permitting  me  to  republish  in  revised  and 
amplified  form  the  second  of  these  dialogues,  "It 
Might  Have  Been." 

In  both  of  these  dialogues,  I  have  put  in  quotation 
marks  such  speeches  as  were  actually  uttered  by  the 
character  to  whom  they  are  attributed.  I  have  done 
this  in  fairness  to  my  distinguished  dramatis  persona, 
so  that  the  reader  can  easily  distinguish  between  state- 
ments which  were  actually  made  and  those  which  only 
represent  my  interpretation  of  the  words  and  acts  of 
the  distinguished  participants  in  the  Paris  Peace  Con- 
ference. Obviously  these  quotations  are  scattered  ex- 
cerpts from  addresses  and  writings  at  different  times 
and  places.  My  readers  will  distinguish  between  those 
portions  of  my  imaginary  conversation  which  are 
written  in  the  spirit  of  jocose  satire  and  those  which 
have  a  more  serious  meaning. 

Thus  my  allusion  in  the  first  of  these  dialogues  to 
the  reservation  of  the  island  of  Yap  for  the  United 
States,  if  read  too  seriously,  would  indicate  a  belief 
on  my  part  that  our  Allies  did  not  deal  generously 
with  America  in  the  Paris  Peace  Conference.  Such 
is  not  the  fact  or  my  opinion.  The  United  States 
could  have  had  anything  in  reason  for  the  asking.  In- 
deed, Constantinople,  the  golden  prize  of  the  Centuries, 
was  offered  to  America.  Mr.  Wilson  truly  represented 
his  country  at  Paris  in  declining  to  accept  any  part 
in  the  division  of  territorial  spoils.  Our  moral  in- 

[viii] 


FOREWORD 

fluence  in  the  councils  of  the  nations  will  be  the  greater 
for  such  renunciation.  Whatever  else  may  be  said  of 
our  part  in  the  World  War,  it  cannot  be  denied  that 
we  emerged  from  the  titanic  conflict,  as  we  had  en- 
tered, with  a  lofty  spirit  of  altruism,  which  will  be  a 
landmark  in  history. 

I  should  publish  this  book  with  greater  hesitation  if 
there  were  not  ample  assurance  that  Mr.  Wilson  has 
happily  recovered  from  his  distressing  malady,  in 
which  he  has  had  the  deep  sympathy  of  all  Americans, 
without  respect  to  party.  His  recovery  is  a  subject 
for  gratification  even  to  those  who  differ  with  his 
policies;  for  American  politics  would  be  the  poorer  if 
this  picturesque  personality  were  eliminated.  The 
United  States,  after  next  March,  will  need  a  vigorous 
opposition  party,  and  who  is  more  capable  to  lead  it 
than  the  twentieth  century  Jefferson? 

JAMES  M.  BECK. 

New  York,  September  i,  1920. 


fix] 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  I 
MR.  WILSON  EXPLAINS  THE  NEW  FREEDOM  .      .       15 

CHAPTER  II 
THE  OLD  FREEDOM 60 

CHAPTER  III 
"!T  MIGHT  HAVE  BEEN" 95 

CHAPTER  IV 
THE  APOSTLE  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM  .     .     .     .     136 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW 
FREEDOM 

CHAPTER  I 

MR.    WILSON   EXPLAINS   THE    NEW    FREEDOM 

*  / 
Quam  parva  sapienti  regitur  mundus. 

SCENE  :    Paris. 

PLACE:    Premier's  Room,  Qual  d'Orsay. 

TIME:    January  15,  ipip. 

[As  the  curtain  rises  PREMIER  CLEMENCEAU,  PRIME 
MINISTER  LLOYD  GEORGE  and  BARON  MAKING  are 
seated  around  a  council  table.  They  are  looking  over 
a  map,  and  drawing  the  lines  of  the  new  boundaries. 
PICK  ON  and  BALFOUR  are  also  present,  but  take  little 
part  in  the  discussion  and  thus  recognise  tlwt  once 
again  the  destinies  of  the  world  are  for  a  time  in  the 
keeping  of  a  new  triumvirate,  Clemenceau,  Lloyd 
George  and  Wilson.'] 

CLEMENCEAU.  We  are,  then,  agreed  as  to  the  divi- 
sion of  Germany's  overseas  dominions.  The  Pacific 
islands  north  of  the  equator  are  to  go  to  Japan;  those 
to  the  south  shall  be  given  to  Great  Britain,  together 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

with  Germany's  possessions  in  Africa  and  a  protec- 
iorato  over  Persia  and  Mesopotamia.  France  will  have 
its  compensation  in  '  Syria,  Morocco,  and  the  Rhine 
frontier,  including  the  Saar  Basin.  To  Italy  are  given 
the  Dalmatian  littoral  and  the  Trentino. 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  [Leaning  back  with  the  satisfied 
smile  of  one  who  has  had  a  good  mealJ]  Is  not  this 
the  greatest  real  estate  transaction  since  the  Almighty 
gave  Adam  a  fee  to  the  world? 

CLEMENCEAU.  You  forget  that  Caesar,  Pompey 
and  Crassus  divided  the  world. 

BALFOUR.  Did  not  Pope  Alexander  VI  also  draw 
a  longitudinal  line  through  the  Atlantic  Ocean  and 
divide  the  unknown  Western  World  between  Spain  and 
Portugal? 

LLOYD  GEORGE.     How  long  did  it  last? 

MAKING.  My  honorable  confreres  must  not  forget 
that,  in  deference  to  our  illustrious  American  col- 
league's views,  we  only  take  the  larger  tracts  of  land 
as  mandatories.  [All  laugh  heartily.'} 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  You  laugh  at  the  scheme  of  man- 
datories; but  it  cost  me  much  to  reconcile  President 
Wilson  with  Premier  Hughes  on  this  point.  Our  diffi- 
culties are  unusually  complicated  by  these  new  states- 
men from  the  four  corners  of  the  earth. 

CLEMENCEAU.  Mandatories !  Mon  dieu!  Great  is 
the  legerdemain  of  language.  Our  American  colleague 
blandly  tells  us,  who  have  sacrificed  millions  of  lives 
and  billions  of  treasure,  that  there  are  to  be  no  annexa- 
tions or  indemnities.  We  defer  to  his  views  by  calling 
annexations  "mandatories"  and  the  indemnities  "rep- 
arations." However,  our  beneficial  enjoyment  of  the 

[16] 


MR.  WILSON  EXPLAINS  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

territories  thus  acquired  will  be  the  same  whether  our 
title  be  absolute  or  nominally  in  trust. 

MAKING.  Does  not  my  honorable  confrere  forget 
the  League  of  Nations  to  which  the  mandatory  is  to 
be  responsible?  [Renewed  laughter,  in  which  all 
join.'] 

CLEMENCEAU.  I  confess  I  at  first  opposed  the  Lea- 
gue of  Nations;  but  I  now  see  that,  as  a  camouflage 
for  the  old  diplomacy,  it  is  not  without  its  merit. 

MAKING.  But  should  we  not,  for  form's  sake, 
offer  something  to  the  United  States? 

CLEMENCEAU.  When,  in  any  conference,  was  any- 
thing offered  to  a  nation  that  did  not  ask  for  it  ?  Presi- 
dent Wilson,  with  or  without  his  country's  approval, 
has  asked  no  territorial  compensation  for  the  sacrifices 
which  the  United  States  has  made  to  win  the  war.  Are 
we  not  justified  in  taking  him  at  his  word? 

MAKING.  Still,  as  a  matter  of  form,  would  it  not 
be  advisable  to  have  America  participate  in  the  spoils 
of  the  victory? 

CLEMENCEAU.  There  is  much  force  in  that  sug- 
gestion. 

[They  examine  a  map  of  the  Pacific  OceanJ] 

CLEMENCEAU.  Eureka!  Here  is  an  island  that  we 
have  overlooked.  It  rejoices  in  the  singular  name  of 
Yap.  Have  either  of  your  Excellencies  ever  heard  of 
Yap? 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  I  confess  that  I  have  not.  But 
then,  I  never  heard  of  Teschen  until  some  of  our 
smaller  allies  quarreled  among  themselves  as  to  this 
part  of  Europe. 

OLEMENCEAU.  Well,  as  the  island  of  Yap  has  not 
[17] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

been  distributed,  I  suggest  that  we  offer  it  to  Mr. 
Wilson. 

LLOYD  GEORGE  and  MAKINO.     Agreed. 

LLOYD  GEORGE,  For  good  measure,  let  us  also  give 
the  United  States  a  mandatory  over  Armenia.  As  even 
the  boundaries  of  that  mountainous  desert  have  not  yet 
been  determined,  let  our  American  colleagues  define 
them.  Do  we  want  Armenia? 

CLEMENCEAU.  It  is  a  liability,  not  an  asset.  Give 
it  to  the  great  idealist. 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  The  territory  of  a  considerable 
portion  of  the  world  being  thus  happily  disposed  of, 
our  chief  difficulty  will  be  in  adjusting  the  frontiers 
of  Europe,  and  especially  in  the  creation  of  new 
boundaries  in  Southeastern  Europe.  I  fear  that  our 
smaller  allies  may  quarrel  among  themselves  to  our 
embarrassment. 

CLEMENCEAU.  They  are  like  a  lot  of  hens  being 
held  by  the  feet  and  carried  to  market — although  all 
doomed  to  the  same  fate,  they  contrive  to  fight  each 
other  while  awaiting  it. 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  May  not  our  chief  difficulty  be  to 
adjust  the  inevitable  differences  as  to  boundaries  be- 
tween Jugo-Slavia  and  Italy?  We  have  made  some 
progress  in  the  division  of  the  Adriatic  littoral ;  but  have 
apparently  reached  the  limit  of  concessions.  It  looks  to 
me  as  if  the  fatal  difference  will  be  with  reference  to 
Fiume. 

MAKING.  Is  it  likely  that  our  American  colleague 
will  wish  to  be  consulted  upon  this  question? 

CLEMENCEAU.  Why  should  he?  When  did  a  sane 
statesman  ever  interfere  in  a  quarrel  between  other 

[18] 


MR.  WILSON  EXPLAINS  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

nations  in  which  his  own  nation  had  no  practical  in- 
terest and  in  which  it  could  only  play  the  cat's  paw  to 
pull  some  very  hot  chestnuts  out  of  a  very  hot  fire? 
I  venture  to  say  that  the  American  President,  until 
this  controversy  arose,  never  heard  of  Fiume,  and  I 
am  afraid  our  own  previous  knowledge  was  not  much 
greater. 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  I  fear  we  are  all  somewhat  defi- 
cient in  geographical  and  ethnic  knowledge.  They  tell 
me  that  during  the  war  and  when  America  was  neutral, 
our  esteemed  colleague  and  loyal  ally,  M.  Paderewski, 
applied  to  a  member  of  President  Wilson's  cabinet  for 
a  Government  transport  to  carry  food  to  Dantzig  and 
thence  down  the  Vistula  River  into  Poland.  Mr.  Wil- 
son's learned  cabinet  minister  heard  the  application, 
and  then  denied  it  on  the  ground  that  he  could  not  risk 
a  government  transport  by  sending  it  through  the 
Mediterranean.1  [All  join  in  renewed  laughter.] 

[Enter  CLEMENCEAU'S  secretary,  with  the  announce- 
ment: "His  Excellency,  the  President  of  the  United 
States.1'  MR.  WILSON  enters.  He  has  the  exalted 
manner  of  a  prophet.  He  literally  exudes  omniscience. 
He  slowly  approaches  the  council  table  and  solemnly 
greets  his  associates.] 

CLEMENCEAU.  Welcome,  Mr.  President.  We  were 
just  discussing  the  necessary  division  of  occupied  Ger- 
man territory  and  the  readjustment  of  European  boun- 
daries. In  Signor  Orlando's  absence,  we  may  say  to 

1This  actually  happened,  but  the  Cabinet  Minister  in  question 
was  not  alone  in  making  a  little  blunder  in  geography. 

[19] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

you  that  we  fear  difficulty  between  his  country  and 
Jugo-Slavia,  and  the  chief  difficulty  is  with  Fiume. 

WILSON.     What? 

CLEMENCEAU.     Fiume. 

WILSON".    Is  it  a  man  or  a  place? 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  A  little  town  on  the  Adriatic,  com- 
posed of  somewhat  less  than  fifty  thousand  inhabitants, 
and  your  excellency  may  well  be  pardoned  for  not 
knowing  of  its  existence.  So  small  a  place  would  hardly 
interest  you  or  your  great  country. 

WILSON.     How  have  you  disposed  of  it? 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  Our  disposition  is  to  give  it  to 
Italy,  even  though  the  territory  of  which  it  is  the  chief 
seaport  is  predominantly  Slavic. 

WILSON.  This  will  never  do.  Let  me  offer  to  your 
solemn  contemplation  the  Fourteen  Points. 

CLEM  EN  CEAU.     The  what  ? 

WILSON.  The  Fourteen  Points  which  I  gave  to  the 
world  in  January,  1918,  as  the  comprehensive  basis  of 
the  peace. 

CLEMENCEAU.     I  confess  I  never  read  them. 

WILSON.  What!  You  amaze  me.  And  yet  your 
country  accepted  the  Fourteen  Points  as  the  basis  of 
the  Armistice  and  the  future  treaty  of  peace. 

CLEMENCEAU.  Yes,  I  accepted  the  Fourteen  Points, 
of  which  I  had  heard  by  name,  when  your  Colonel 
House  intimated  that  in  the  event  of  our  failure  to 
accept  them,  he  could  not  say  what  your  action  might 
be.  What  could  I  do?  My  concern  then  was  to  win 
the  war.  I  knew  that,  without  respect  to  your  wishes 
or  mine,  the  terms  of  peace  would  be  adjusted  by  cir- 
cumstances and  not  by  academic  formulas. 

[20] 


MR.  WILSON  EXPLAINS  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

WILSON.  I  fear  you  do  not  consider  sufficiently 
the  sanctity  of  my  Fourteen  Points.  "These  are  days  of 
great  perplexity,  when  a  great  cloud  of  trouble  hangs 
and  broods  over  the  greater  part  of  the  world.  It 
seems  as  if  great,  blind  material  forces  had  been  re- 
leased, which  had  for  long  been  held  in  leash  and  re- 
straint. I  imagine  I  see,  I  hope  that  I  see,  I  pray  that 
it  may  be  that  I  do  truly  see,  great  spiritual  forces 
lying  waiting  for  the  outcome  of  this  thing  to  assert 
themselves,  and  asserting  themselves  even  now  to  en- 
lighten our  judgment  and  steady  our  spirits.  There- 
fore, I  came  to  Paris,  literally  to  fight  for  my  Four- 
teen Points,  and  I  owe  it  to  my  people  to  see  to  it,  in 
so  far  as  in  me  lies,  that  no  false  or  mistaken  inter- 
pretation is  put  upon  them  and  no  possible  effort 
omitted  to  realize  them.  It  is  now  my  duty  to  play  my 
full  part  in  making  good  what  my  soldiers  offered  their 
lives  and  blood  to  obtain.  I  can  think  of  no  call  to 
service  which  could  transcend  this." 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  You  constantly  refer  to  "my" 
Fourteen  Points.  May  I  not  remind  your  Excellency 
that  I  had  advanced  this  programme  of  peace  adjust- 
ment before  you  promulgated  the  famous  Fourteen? 

MAKING.  I  am  heartily  glad  to  know  that  your 
Excellency  will  put  the  adjustment  of  peace  upon  so 
high  and  noble  a  plane.  And  this  reminds  me  of  a 
matter  of  spiritual  significance  in  which  my  country 
has  a  vital  interest.  What  spiritual  ideal  can  there 
be  of  greater  nobility  than  the  Fatherhood  of  God  and 
the  common  Brotherhood  of  man?  This  emboldens 
me  to  bring  up  the  matter  of  racial  equality,  to  which, 
in  this  moral  regeneration  of  the  world  upon  which 

[21] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

we  are  now  entering  under  your  inspiring  guidance, 
there  should  be  the  recognition  of  the  Peace  Confer- 
ence. 

WILSON.  I  think  this  subject  had  better  be  de- 
ferred. There  are  embarrassing  circumstances,  grow- 
ing out  of  racial  differences  in  my  country,  which 
would  make  it  embarrassing  to  me  to  recognize  the 
equality  of  races  which  our  confrere  from  Japan  sug- 
gests. The  fact  is,  I  may  confidentially  say  to  you, 
that  my  political  strength  in  America  is  largely  drawn 
from  a  section  of  the  country  which  has  a  deep-rooted 
and  unconquerable  aversion  to  any  suggestion  of  racial 
equality,  and  my  reelection  was  largely  determined  by 
the  vote  of  a  State  which,  situated  on  the  Pacific  Coast, 
feels  deeply  the  question  of  Japanese  equality  and 
would  never  take  kindly  to  your  Excellency's  request. 
I  believe  in  the  "great  spiritual  forces  lying  waiting  for 
the  outcome  of  this  thing  to  assert  themselves";  but, 
after  all,  my  dear  colleagues,  we  must  draw  the  line 
somewhere. 

MAKING.  [Rises  indignantly.]  With  such  a  fatal 
negation  of  the  fundamental  condition  of  the  perma- 
nent pacification  of  the  world,  I  think  that  my  presence 
would  not,  at  the  moment,  add  value  to  your  delibera- 
tions. I  will  therefore  withdraw,  to  relieve  you  of  any 
present  embarrassment;  but,  as  the  moral  leaven  of 
the  new  idealism  works  in  Paris,  I  shall  venture,  on  a 
later  occasion,  to  bring  again  to  your  attention  the  just 
claims  of  my  great  people  to  equality  with  any  other. 
With  less  than  this,  my  people  would  not  be  contented. 

[BARON  MAKING  bows  gravely  and  withdraws."] 


MR.  WILSON  EXPLAINS  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  We  must  satisfy  our  Japanese 
colleague  upon  this  point.  After  all,  the  recognition 
of  racial  equality  is  only  of  sentimental  importance, 
and  your  Declaration  of  Independence  did  affirm  that 
"all  men  are  born  free  and  equal." 

WILSON  [Grimly]  But  not  so  free  and  equal  as 
to  ignore  the  ethnic  difference  as  profound  as  the  dif- 
ference between  the  yellow  and  white  races. 

CLEMENCEAU.  Deeply  and  naturally  as  our  Japa- 
nese colleague  feels  upon  this  subject,  I  think  we  can 
reconcile  him  to  a  negative  reply  by  a  concession  of 
Japanese  domination  over  Shantung.  Your  Excellency 
[turning  to  WILSON]  will  not  object  to  this  adjustment 
of  the  matter? 

WILSON.     How  many  people  are  there  in  Shantung? 

LLOYD  GEORGE.     Nearly  forty  millions. 

WILSON.  Is  not  that  a  very  considerable  concession 
for  yielding  on  a  point  of  only  sentimental  interest? 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  I  fear  it  may  be  necessary,  as 
England  cannot  afford  to  disappoint  so  faithful  an 
ally  as  Japan.  We  trust  we  may  have  your  Excel- 
lency's permission  to  offer  such  a  compromise  to  the 
Japanese  representatives. 

WILSON.  But  it  violates  my  great  principle  of  self- 
determination.  Have  I  not  said  very  solemnly — I  say 
everything  very  solemnly — that  "every  people  has  a 
right  to  choose  the  sovereignty  under  which  they  shall 
live."  x  It  offends  me  to  the  soul  to  sanction  such  a 
clear  departure  from  that  noble  ideal.  The  Confer- 
ence has  not  begun,  and  yet  three  of  my  Fourteen 
Points  have  been  overridden.  Have  I  not  solemnly 

1  Address  on  League  of  Nations,  May  27,  1916. 

[23] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

proclaimed  the  right  of  weak  and  small  states  to  preser- 
vation against  aggression?  You  now  ask  me  to  bar- 
gain away  the  rights  of  forty  millions  of  people  with- 
out their  leave  and  against  their  protests.  You  forget 
that  my  prestige  is  at  stake. 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  After  all,  Mr.  President,  self- 
determination  is  a  mere  abstraction  and  biologically 
unsound  at  that;  for  when  did  man  or  nation,  from 
the  cradle  to  the  grave,  ever  truly  have  the  privilege 
of  self-determination? 

CLEMENCEAU.  The  first  apostle  of  self-determina- 
tion was  my  own  countryman,  Rousseau.  He  carried 
it  to  its  logical  results.  "There  is  no  other  god  but 
Self,  and  Rousseau  is  his  prophet. "  We  owe  to  him  in 
great  part  the  rampant  individualism  of  the  present  day, 
and  it  is  interesting  to  discover  where  the  principle  of 
self-determination  led  him.  On  his  own  confession,  he 
was  about  the  most  unmitigated  scoundrel  in  the  New- 
gate calendar  of  literature. 

BALFOUR.  Quite  so.  Our  Milton  tells  us  that 
when  Satan  asserted  the  principle  of  self-determination 
against  the  Almighty,  he  fell  for  nine  days  before  he 
touched  bottom. 

CLEMENCEAU.  Even  in  your  country,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, there  has  been  no  consistent  adherence  to  self- 
determination.  You  did  win  your  freedom  by  invok- 
ing it  as  a  right ;  but  we  French  helped  you  determine 
your  independence.  In  your  Civil  War,  you  gave  a 
half  million  lives  and  spent  some  billions  of  your 
dollars  to  deny  it  as  a  principle.  I  confess  that  I 
admired  your  Mr.  Lincoln  when  he  summoned  the 
strength  of  his  country  to  deny  to  the  seceding  States 

[24] 


MR.  WILSON  EXPLAINS  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

a  right  of  self-determination  which  conflicted  with 
national  sovereignty.  However,  we  can  give  Shantung 
to  Japan,  with  the  understanding  that  she  will  give  it 
back  to  China. 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  Upon  such  terms  as  they  agree 
upon. 

WILSON.  That  alters  matters.  After  all,  we  must 
satisfy  our  Japanese  colleague  to  ensure  his  nation's 
adherence  to  the  League  of  Nations.  Let  it  be  so 
arranged. 

CLEMENCEAU  [Aside  to  LLOYD  GEORGE].  An  easy 
adjustment.  When  Japan  exacts  the  terms,  China  will, 
I  fear,  pay  dearly  for  the  province  of  Confucius. 

[Enter  CLEMENCEAU'S  Secretary.} 

SECRETARY  [Addressing  WILSON].  A  delegation 
has  called  and  insists  that  I  should  hand  your  Excel- 
lency a  petition,  as  matter  of  special  urgency. 

[WILSON  takes  the  packet,  breaks  the  steals,  and 
examines  it  intently;  then -takes  out  his  memorandum 
book.} 

WILSON  [Addressing  Secretary}.  Tell  them  that 
"this  question  will  form  the  subject  of  a  thorough 
examination  by  the  competent  authorities  of  the  Con- 
ference." I  must  give  them  an  appointment.  Let  me 
see  what  my  engagements  are  for  to-morrow. 

[Opens  memorandum  book.} 

"li  A.  M.  Dr.  Wellington  Koo,  to  present  the 
Chinese  Delegation  to  the  Peace  Conference;  11:10 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

A.  M.,.  Marquis  de  Vogue  and  a  delegation  of  seven 
others,  representing  the  Congres  National  Frangais,  to 
present  their  view  as  to  the  disposition  of  the  left 
bank  of  the  Rhine;  11:30  A.  M.,  Assyrian  and 
Chaldean  Delegation,  with  a  message  from  the 
Assyrian-Chaldean  nation;  11:45  A.  M.,  Dalmatian 
Delegation,  to  present  to  the  President  the  result  of 
the  plebiscite  of  that  part  of  Dalmatia  occupied  by 
Italians;  Noon,  M.  Bucquet,  Charge  d' Affaires  of 
San  Marino,  to  convey  the  action  of  the  Grand  Coun- 
cil of  San  Marino,  conferring  on  the  President  Hon- 
orary Citizenship  in  the  Republic  of  San  Marino; 
12:10  P.  M.,  M.  Colonder,  Swiss  Minister  of  Foreign 
Affairs;  12:20  P.  M.,  Miss  Rose  Schneiderman  and 
Miss  Mary  Anderson,  delegates  of  the  National  Wom- 
en's Trade  Union  League  of  the  United  States;  12  :3O 
P.  M.,  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  the  head  of  the 
Orthodox  Eastern  Church;  12  145  P.  M.,  Essad  Pasha, 
delegate  of  Albania,  to  present  the  claims  of  Albania; 
I  P.  M.,  M.  M.  L.  Coromilas,  Greek  Minister  at 
Rome,  to  pay  his  respects;  Luncheon,  Mr.  Newton  D. 
Baker,  Secretary  of  War;  4  P.  M.,  Mr.  Herbert 
Hoover;  4:15  P.  M.,  M.  Bratiano,  of  the  Roumanian 
Delegation;  4:30  P.  M.,  Dr.  Alfonso  Costa,  former 
Portuguese  Minister,  Portuguese  Delegate  to  the 
Peace  Conference;  4:45  P.  M.,  Boghos  Nubar  Pasha, 
president  of  the  Armenian  National  Delegation,  ac- 
companied by  M.  A.  Aharoman  and  Professor  A.  Der 
Hagopian,  of  Robert  College;  5  .-15  P.  M.,  M.  Pasitch, 
of  the  Serbian  Delegation;  5:30  P.  M.,  Mr.  Frank 
Walsh,  of  the  Irish-American  Delegation." 

[26], 


MIL  WILSON  EXPLAINS  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

Frank  Walsh,  from  Ireland?  How  did  my  stupid 
secretary  come  to  make  that  appointment.  It  was 
very  careless.  This  gives  me  an  excuse  to  put  off  the 
Irish  delegation.  [Turning  to  the  secretary.']  Tell 
the  delegation  from  Corsica  that  I  shall  be  pleased  to 
consider  their  claims  to  autonomy  to-morrow  at  four- 
thirty  for  fifteen  minutes. 

CLEMENCEAU.     The  what  delegation? 

WILSON.  Why,  I  have  a  petition  from  the  people 
of  Corsica  asking  that  I  do  what  I  can  to  secure  them 
full  autonomy  on  the  principle  of  self-determination. 

CLEMENCEAU.  Is  your  Excellency  aware  of  the. 
fact  that  Corsica  is  a  part  of  France? 

WILSON.  Why,  no;  for  the  moment  I  had  over- 
looked the  fact. 1  Such  a  mistake  is  very  distressing 
[Turning  to  secretary. ~\  Tell  the  Corsican  delegation 
that  of  course  I  cannot  interfere  with  the  internal  af- 
fairs of  a  friendly  ally,  and  it  is  impossible  for  me  to 
see  them. 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  I  hope  your  Excellency,  with  that 
shining  consistency  which  has  characterized  your  pub- 
lic utterances  and  actions,  will  apply  the  same  rule  to 
Ireland,  which,  I  need  not  remind  you,  is  still  a  part 
of  Great  Britain.  Your  vague  ideal  of  self-determina- 
tion is  already  having  a  most  unhappy  effect  upon  the 
integrity  of  the  Great  Empire  which  I  have  the  honor 
to  represent.  After  all  are  we  not  your  Ally? 

WILSON.     Associate,  not  ally. 

*  See  Dillon's  The  Peace  Conference,  page  90,  where  the  in- 
cident is  related.  Whether  the  blunder  was  that  of  the  President 
or  one  of  his  Secretaries  Dr.  Dillon  does  not  say.  That  President 
Wilson  should  even  momentarily  have  forgotten  that  Corsica  is 
-a  part  of  France  seems  unlikely. 

[27] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

CLEMENCEATJ.  Did  your  soldiers  consider  this  dis- 
tinction when  they  died  with  ours  in  a  common  cause? 

WILSON.  Ireland's  claim  for  self-determination  is 
very  embarrassing,  and  my  freedom  of  action  is  some- 
what affected  by  the  fact  that  my  political  strength  in 
America  is  very  largely  drawn  from  the  Irish-Ameri- 
can vote.  It  will  take  some  finesse  to  keep  the  eminent 
Irish-Americans,  who  are  here  in  Paris  to  insist  upon 
the  right  of  self-determination  at  bay,  but  I  shall 
manage  it  in  some  way.  It  is  unfortunate  that  I  did 
not  bring  Mr.  Tumulty  with  me.  He  could  have  ar- 
ranged it.  I  cannot  trust  these  matters  to  Mr.  Lansing, 
who  is  lacking  in  the  nice  skill  which  we  statesmen 
must  have  of 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  "Keeping  the  word  of  promise  to 
the  ear,  and  breaking  it  to  the  hope." 

WILSON.  Your  quotation  is  indelicate,  and,  may  I 
not  say,  annoying.  I  never  palter  in  a  double  sense. 
But  may  I  not  again  remark  that  this  Irish  question 
makes  me  regret  that  I  did  not  leave  about  nine- 
tenths  of  my  learned  experts  in  America  and  bring 
with  me  the  resourceful  Tumulty. 

CLEMENCEAU.  Mon  Dieu!  Let  us  drop  these  side 
issues  and  address  ourselves  to  the  present  problem  of 
making  it  impossible  for  Germany  to  renew  this  war. 
Until  that  is  accomplished,  of  what  avail  is  it  to  divide 
the  world?  Over  two  months  have  passed  since  the 
Armistice,  and  we  have  as  yet  made  no  progress.  Let 
us  imitate  Napoleon's  celerity  after  Jena.  Our  task 
grows  more  difficult  with  delay. 

LLOYD  GEORGE.     Can  we,  with  fairness,  take  up 


MR.  WILSON  EXPLAINS  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

any  of  these  problems  until  our  worthy  confrere  of 
Italy  arrives? 

CLEMENCEAU.  I  received  word  from  him  that  he 
would  be  here  in  a  half  hour.  I  agree  with  you  that 
we  should  do  nothing  until  he  comes. 

BALFOUR.  While  waiting  for  him,  I  am  wondering 
whether  our  illustrious  colleague  would  not  explain 
to  us  some  of  the  features  of  the  American  Constitu- 
tion, which  we  European  statesmen  have  not  as  yet 
sufficiently  understood.  If  European  and  American 
politics  are  hereafter  to  be  intermingled,  it  is  necessary 
for  us  in  Europe  to  know  more  of  American  institu- 
tions than  we  have  hitherto  known,  and  [turning  to 
WILSON]  to  what  fountain  head  of  knowledge  could 
we  better  repair  than  to  your  Excellency?  Your  lec- 
tures on  constitutional  government  have  their  admirers 
beyond  the  classic  walls  of  the  famous  University  of 
which  you  were  once  the  distinguished  head. 

WILSON.  I  shall  be  most  happy  to  explain  any 
features  of  our  Constitution  which  you  do  not  under- 
stand; but  I  may  say  to  you  that  you  will  find  little 
enlightenment  in  my  lectures  at  Princeton ;  for,  when 
I  entered  public  life  and  first  became  a  candidate  for 
office,  a  new  light  came  to  me,  as  that  which  fell  upon 
Paul  on  his  way  to  Damascus.  I  put  aside,  as  child- 
ish things,  many  of  my  former  views.  At  Prince- 
ton, I  was  a  conservative, — I  had  almost  said,  a  re- 
actionary. But  when  I  became  a  candidate  for  the 
Governorship  of  New  Jersey,  things  seemed  different. 
I  gave  to  my  countrymen  a  new  Gospel  in  a  book 
which  I  called  "The  New  Freedom,"  which  clearly 
discloses  that  my  contact  with  the  new  Qirrents  of 

[29] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

thought  in  America  had  made  me  reject  essential 
features  of  the  old  freedom  with  which  my  country- 
men were  short-sighted  enough  to  be  satisfied. 

CLEMENCEAU.  Do  explain  to  us  the  difference  be- 
tween the  old  and  the  new  freedom.  As  you  know,  I 
lived  in  your  country  and  learned  something  of  its 
institutions.  I  have  studied  the  Constitution  and  the 
writings  of  those  like  the  authors  of  the  "Federalist" 
papers,  who  were  once  regarded  as  its  great  commen- 
tators. From  them,  I  derived  the  idea  that  the  under- 
lying spirit  of  your  government  was  sleepless  jealousy 
of  governmental  power,  whether  it  was  legislative, 
executive,  or  even  judicial.  Thus,  as  I  understand 
the  writings  of  your  Hamilton  and  Madison,  you  es- 
tablished a  government  of  checks  and  balances,  where- 
by the  legislative  should  prevent  usurpations  by  the 
executive,  and  the  executive,  usurpations  by  the  legis^ 
lative  branch  of  the  government,  and  the  judiciary 
should  hold  both  in  check.  As  a  Frenchman,  I  take 
some  pride  in  the  fact  that  this  idea  of  a  division  of 
governmental  authority  into  three  separate  and  partly 
independent  departments  was  derived  by  the  f  ramers  of 
your  Constitution  from  my  great  compatriot,  Montes- 
quieu. I  have  therefore  been  greatly  puzzled  by  the 
events  of  the  last  three  or  four  years;  for  we  in  Europe 
have  seen  a  consolidation  of  authority,  and  if  you  will 
allow  it,  an  unchallenged  exercise  of  one-man  power 
which  would  not  be  possible  even  in  governments 
which  did  not  follow  the  Montesquieu  doctrine.  It 
would  thus  seem  that  the  whole  nature  of  your  Gov- 
ernment has  undergone  a  profound  and  portentous 
transformation,  and,  as  all  this  has  happened  since  I 

[30] 


MR.  WILSON  EXPLAINS  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

left  America,  I  should  be  deeply  interested  to  know 
how  such  a  revolution  came  to  pass. 

WILSON.  It  is  my  inestimable  privilege  to  have 
wrought  this  transformation.  May  I  not  say  that  I 
have  exercised  a  power  greater  than  all  my  predeces- 
sors? 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  But  how  did  you  bring  it  about, 
when  we,  in  England,  who  have  no  written  constitu- 
tion, apparently  cannot  make  constitutional  changes  so 
easily  as  you  with  your  rigid  written  Constitution? 
Our  last  change  in  government,  the  impairment  of  the 
legislative  power  of  the  House  of  Lords,  only  fol- 
lowed the  most  acrimonious  debate  and  a  prolonged 
struggle,  which  nearly  culminated  in  civil  war.  Only 
the  moral  authority  of  the  King  averted  the  peril. 

WILSON.  It  was  my  new  freedom  that  wrought 
the  mighty  change  in  the  American  government.  I 
discovered  a  great  truth  and  converted  my  country- 
men to  its  acceptance.  You  will  find  it  all  in  "The 
New  Freedom."  With  this  magnum  opus,  I  in- 
augurated the  new  revolution  to  overcome  the  theory 
of  the  Constitution  as  Hamilton  gave  it  to  us.  He 
was  "a  great  man,  but  not  a  great  American."  He 
had  not  fed  upon  the  imperishable  food,  "the  food  of 
those  visions  of  the  spirit  where  a  table  is  set  before  us 
laden  with  palatable  fruits,  the  fruits  of  hope,  the 
fruits  of  imagination, — those  invisible  things  of  the 
spirit,  which  are  the  only  things  upon  which  we  can 
sustain  ourselves  through  this  weary  world  without 
fainting." 

BALFOUR  [Looks  puzzled'}.  I  am  not  sure  that  I 
grasp  your  Excellency's  meaning.  We  in  England 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

greatly  admire  Hamilton,  and  envy  America  in  having 
had  such  a  master  builder  in  the  foundation  of  its 
institutions.  Was  it  not  his  merit  that  he  fed  his 
countrymen  upon  the  substantial  bread  of  hard  facts? 
Does  not  his  superiority  to  Jefferson  lie  in  the  fact 
that  the  latter  inflamed  the  minds  of  his  people  with 
impossible  visions;  whereas  Hamilton  built  upon  ac- 
tual conditions  the  superstructure  of  a  workable  gov- 
ernment ? 

WILSON.  I  admit  that  Washington,  Franklin, 
Hamilton  and  Madison  constructed  a  Constitution  that 
was  admirably  adapted  to  their  day,  when  the  land- 
owners were  the  real  rulers  of  America.  But  this  is 
the  day  of  the  People,  and  they  need  a  stronger  gov- 
ernment. The  Constitution  has  worked  well ;  but  that 
is  "no  proof  that  it  is  an  excellent  constitution,  be- 
cause Americans  could  run  any  constitution."  The 
Constitution  was  a  reactionary  document.  It  dis- 
trusted democracy,  and  its  careful  provisions  for  a 
representative  government  must  be  destroyed ;  and  this 
they  will  be  by  the  initiative  and  the  referendum, 
which  I  once  denounced  in  my  classes  at  Prince- 
ton; but  which,  since  my  entry  into  public  life,  I  now 
advocate.  I  recognize  that  "we  stand  in  the  presence 
of  a  revolution.  We  are  upon  the  eve  of  a  great  re- 
construction. The  old  order  changeth  with  the  noise 
and  heat  and  tumult  of  reconstruction.  Society  stands 
ready  to  attempt  nothing  less  than  a  radical  reconstruc- 
tion, which  only  frank  and  honest  counsels  can  hold 
back  from  becoming  a  revolution.  We  are  in  a  temper 
to  reconstruct  economic  society,  as  we  were  once  in  a 
temper  to  reconstruct  political  society,  and  political 

[32] 


MR.  WILSON  EXPLAINS  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

society  may  itself  undergo  a  radical  modification  in  the 
process.  I  doubt  if  any  age  was  ever  more  conscious 
of  its  task  or  more  unanimously  desirous  of  radical 
and  extended  changes  in  its  economic  and  political 
practice."  You  will  find  the  new  gospel  set  forth  in 
my  "The  New  Freedom,"  published  by  Doubleday, 
Page  &  Co.,  at  the  modest  price  of  one  dollar.  In 
that  book,  I  showed  that  public  opinion  was  in  a  state 
of  flux.  I  was  satisfied  that  we  stood  "in  the  presence 
of  a  revolution, — not  a  bloody  revolution,  but  a  silent 
revolution."  *  In  this  potential  revolution,  I  recognized 
the  possibility  of  the  agitator.  I  warned  the  people 
that  "some  man  with  eloquent  tongue,  without  con- 
science, who  did  not  care  for  the  nation,  could  put  this 
whole  country  into  a  flame.  This  country,  from  one 
end  to  the  other,  believes  that  something  is  wrong. 
What  an  opportunity  it  would  be  for  some  man  with- 
out conscience  to  spring  up  and  say :  This  is  the  way. 
Follow  me!' — and  lead  in  the  paths  of  destruction."2 

CLEMENCEAU  (aside  to  Lloyd  George.)  Appar- 
ently the  man  was  found.  (Addressing  Wilson.)  But 
you  could  not  thus  reconstruct  your  country  without 
changing  the  point  of  view  of  the  masses.  As  your 
country  was  contented  and  prosperous  beyond  any 
other  country  in  the  world,  how  could  you  convert  a 
contented  people  into  that  state  of  discontent  without 
which  no  revolution  is  possible? 

WILSON.  A  revelation  came  to  me  that  those  who 
founded  my  government  and  framed  its  Constitution, 
while  estimable  men  according  to  their  lights,  neverthe- 
less proceeded  upon  a  false  theory.  Washington, 

1  Wilson's  The  New  Freedom,  p.  30. 
'Id.,  p.  28. 

[33] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

Hamilton,  Madison,  Wilson  and  Franklin  are  not  un- 
worthy of  commendation  when  we  consider  their 
limited  qualifications  and  narrow  outlook.  They  lived 
in  a  little  wrorld,  and  had  the  light  of  the  New  Freedom 
suddenly  shone  upon  them,  they  would  have  been 
blinded  by  the  effulgent  light  of  the  twentieth  century. 
They  were  practical  men;  but,  as  such,  incapable  of 
seeing  a  great  vision  and  hearing  voices  in  the  air. 

CLEMENCEAU.  I  confess  that  to  me  their  great 
virtue  was  that  they  kept  their  feet  on  the  ground, 
That  which  they  saw,  they  saw  clearly. 

WILSON.  Columbus  saw  a  vision,  and  discovered 
America;  Jeanne  d'Arc  heard  voices  in  the  air,  and 
saved  France.  I,  too,  hitched  my  wagon  to  a  star. 

CLEMENCEAU.  A  very  hazardous  method  of  trans- 
portation. Not  all  visions  become  realities,  and  not 
all  voices  in  the  air  become  harmonies  that  are  attuned 
to  mortal  ears.  But  what  was  the  profound  truth 
with  which  you  made  so  great  a  change  in  the  American 
form  of  government? 

WILSON.  One  day  at  Princeton  "it  was  my  good 
fortune  to  entertain  a  very  interesting  Scotsman  who 
had  been  devoting  himself  to  the  philosophical  thought 
of  the  seventeenth  century.  His  talk  was  so  engaging 
that  it  was  delightful  to  hear  him  speak  of  anything 
and  presently  there  came  out  of  the  unexpected  region 
of  his  thought  the  thing  I  had  been  waiting  for.  He 
called  my  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  every  generation 
all  sorts  of  speculation  and  thinking  tend  to  fall  under 
the  formula  of  the  dominant  thought  of  the  age.  For 
example,  after  the  Newtonian  theory  of  the  universe 
had  been  developed,  almost  all  thinking  tended  to  ex- 

[34] 


MR.  WILSON  EXPLAINS  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

press  itself  in  the  analogies  of  the  Newtonian  theory, 
and  since  the  Darwinian  theory  has  reigned  amongst 
us,  everybody  is  likely  to  express  whatever  he  wishes 
to  expound  in  terms  of  development  and  accommoda- 
tion to  environment  Now,  it  came  to  me,  as  this 
interesting  man  talked,  that  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  had  been  made  under  the  dominion  of 
the  Newtonian  theory.  *  *  *  *  The  makers  of  our  Fed- 
eral Constitution  read  Montesquieu  with  true  scientific 
enthusiasm.  They  were  scientists  in  their  way — the  best 
way  of  their  age — those  fathers  of  the  nation.  Jef- 
ferson wrote  of  'the  laws  of  Nature,' — and  then  by 
way  of  afterthought — 'and  of  Nature's  God/  And 
they  constructed  a  government  as  they  would  have 
constructed  an  orrery, — to  display  the  laws  of  nature. 
Politics  in  their  thought  was  a  variety  of  mechanics. 
The  Constitution  was  founded  on  the  law  of  gravita- 
tion. The  government  was  to  exist  and  move  by  virtue 
of  the  efficacy  of  'checks  and  balances/  The  trouble 
with  the  theory  is  that  government  is  not  a  machine, 
but  a  living  thing.  It  falls,  not  under  the  theory  of 
the  universe,  but  under  the  theory  of  organic  life.  It 
is  accountable  to  Darwin,  not  to  Newton.  It  is  modi- 
fied by  its  environment,  necessitated  by  its  tasks,  shaped 
to  its  function  by  the  sheer  pressure  of  life.  No  living 
thing  can  have  its  organs  offset  against  each  other,  as 
checks,  and  live."  * 

BALFOUR.  I  once  read  Madison's  record  of  the 
debates  of  your  Constitutional  Convention.  I  do  not 
recall  any  reference  to  Newton  or  his  theory  of 
gravitation. 

1  Wilson's  The  New  Freedom,  pp.  45-47. 

[35] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

CLEMEN CEAU.  Nor  do  I  recall  anything  in  the 
Federalist  papers  which  (indicates  that  those  men, 
who,  notwithstanding  your  Excellency's  modest  esti- 
mate of  their  worth,  I  should  regard  as  supremely 
great,  ever  conformed  their  theory  of  government  to 
Newton's  Principia.  It  may  be  so;  but  they  were 
strangely  silent  on  the  subject. 

WILSON.  Well,  so  my  friend  from  Scotland  told 
me,  and  certainly  this  theory  of  the  influence  of  the 
Newtonian  theory  of  the  siderial  universe  upon  the 
formulation  of  the  Constitution  seemed  impressive  to 
the  undergraduates  at  Princeton,  when  I  explained  it 
to  them  in  my  lectures. 

CLEMENCEAU.  Possibly  they  did  not  understand 
your  theory.  It  sounds  like  the  solemn  obscurities  of 
Hegel.  That  which  we  do  not  understand  is  apt  to 
seem  profound.  But  we  do  not  yet  understand  what 
was  your  discovery. 

WILSON.  My  discovery  was  that  the  Newtonian 
theory,  as  applied  to  the  American  Government,  was 
a  monstrous  error,  and  that,  in  place  of  Newton's 
theory,  it  was  necessary  to  substitute  the  Darwinian 
theory. 

CLEMENCEAU.  Mon  Dieu!  What  an  extraordinary 
intellect.  Who  but  your  Excellency  would  have 
thought  either  the  Newtonian  or  the  Darwinian  theory 
had  any  reference  to  a  form  of  government,  or  that 
the  problems  of  government  could  be  resolved  into  the 
elements  of  mechanics?  But  what  feature  of  the  Dar- 
winian theory  did  you  apply  in  your  great  work  of 
reforming  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States? 

WILSON.     The  basic  principle   of   the   Darwinian 

[36] 


MR.  WILSON  EXPLAINS  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

theory  is  the  struggle  for  existence  and  the  survival 
of  the  fittest.  I  reached  the  conclusion  that  there  had 
been  and  would  always  be  an  inevitable  struggle  be- 
tween the  Executive  and  Legislative  branches  of  the 
government  for  power,  and  that  the  fittest  would  sur- 
vive. I  determined  to  be  the  fittest,  and  I  proved  to 
the  satisfaction  of  the  world  that  such  is  the  fact. 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  But  how  did  you  accomplish  it, 
Mr.  President? 

WILSON.  I  knew  that  the  Constitution  had  made 
the  Presidential  office  immensely  powerful  in  its  con- 
trol over  public  patronage.  Long  ago,  I  had  pointed 
out  in  my  earlier  work  on  "Constitutional  Government 
in  the  United  States"  that  "there  are  illegitimate 
means  by  which  the  President  may  influence  the  action 
of  Congress.  He  may  bargain  with  members,  not  only 
with  regard  to  appointment,  but  also  with  regard  to 
legislative  measures.  He  may  use  his  local  patronage 
to  assist  members  to  get  or  retain  their  seats.  He  may 
interpose  his  powerful  influence,  in  one  covert  way  or 
another,  in  contests  for  places  in  the  Senate.  He  may 
also  overbear  Congress  by  arbitrary  acts  which  ignore 
the  laws  or  virtually  override  them.  He  may  even  sub- 
stitute his  own  orders  for  acts  of  Congress  which  he 
wants  but  cannot  get."1  At  that  time  I  characterized 
any  such  attempt  by  the  Executive  to  concentrate  the 
power  of  the  Government  in  his  office  as  "deeply  im- 
moral." I  even  said  that  "no  honorable  man  includes 
such  agencies  in  a  sober  exposition  of  the  Constitution 
or  allows  himself  to  think  of  them  when  he  speaks 

1  Wilson's  Constitutional  Government  in  the  United  States, 
P.  71- 

[37] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

of  the  influence  of  'life*  which  govern  each  genera- 
tion's use  and  interpretation  of  that  great  instrument, 
our  sovereign  guide  and  the  object  of  our  deepest  rever- 
ence. Nothing  in  a  system  like  ours  can  be  constitu- 
tional which  is  immoral  or  touches  the  good  faith  of 
those  who  have  sworn  to  obey  the  fundamental  law. 
The  reprobation  of  all  good  men  will  always  over- 
whelm such  influences  with  shame  and  failure." 

With  such  views  I  did  not  utilize  such  crude  means. 
I  did  not  "overbear  Congress  by  arbitrary  acts"  or 
substitute  my  orders  for  their  will.  I  merely  used  my 
influence  to  redistribute  the  powers  of  the  Govern- 
ment so  that  the  Executive  would  be  of  overshadowing 
importance.  In  this  way,  I  sought  to  defeat  the  system 
of  checks  and  balances  which  the  Darwinian  theory 
had  shown  to  be  fundamentally  unsound.  Conscious 
of  my  power,  I  forced  Congress,  although  after  a  bit- 
ter debate,  to  pass  the  so-called  "Overman  Law,"  by 
which  the  powers  of  Congress  over  the  machinery  of 
our  government  were  materially  impaired  and  I  was 
given  almost  unlimited  power  to  reconstruct  the  Exec- 
utive branch  of  the  Government  according  to  my  own 
views.  My  theory  was  that  popular  Government  was 
promoted  by  the  greatest  possible  concentration  of 
governmental  power  in  one  man,  for  the  time  being 
myself. 

BALFOQR.  Does  not  your  statement  of  the  Dar- 
winian theory  ignore  the  fact  that  its  disciples 
placed  too  much  emphasis  on  the  struggle  for  exist- 
ence ?  Darwin  also  taught  such  cooperation  and  mutual 
dependence  as  the  framers  of  your  Constitution  in- 

1  Wilson's    Constitutional   Government  in    the    Umted   States, 
p.  71. 

[38] 


MR.  WILSON  EXPLAINS  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

tended  in  the  coordination  of  the  different  branches  of 
your  Government.  Did  you  not  encounter  serious 
opposition  in  making  Congress  abdicate  its  dominating 
position  in  your  Government  as  the  law-makers? 

WILSON.  I  did  that  which  any  of  my  predecessors 
could  have  done  and  which  many  of  them  had  at- 
tempted to  do  with  less  success.  You  do  not  appreciate 
the  enormous  influence  of  the  President  through  his 
control  of  patronage,  and,  by  patronage,  I  mean  not 
merely  the  power  of  appointment,  but  the  greater 
power  to  direct  the  business  energies  of  the  Federal 
Government  and  to  influence  the  business  energies  of 
the  people.  With  the  lever  of  party  patronage  alone, 
the  President  can  destroy  the  equilibrium  of  power 
which  is  supposed  to  exist  between  the  President  and 
the  Congress.  "The  President  can,  if  he  chooses,  be- 
come national  boss  by  the  use  of  his  enormous  patron- 
age, doling  out  his  local  gifts  of  place  to  local  party 
managers  in  return  for  support  and  cooperation  in  the 
guidance  and  control  of  his  party.  His  patronage 
touches  every  community  in  the  United  States.  He 
can  often  by  its  use  disconcert  and  even  master  the 
local  managers  of  his  own  party  by  combining  the 
arts  of  the  politician  with  the  duties  of  the  statesman, 
and  he  can  go  far  towards  establishing  a  complete  per- 
sonal domination.  He  can  even  break  party  lines 
asunder  and  draw  together  combinations  of  his  own 
devising." 1  As  I  have  said,  I  despised  such  crude 
methods,  I  knew  that  the  mere  power  over  patronage 
was  as  effective  as  its  exercise.  My  party  associates 
in  Congress  well  knew  that  I  could  deprive  them  of 

1  Wilson's  Constitutional  Government,  p.  215. 

[39] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

appointments  in  their  territorial  sphere  of  influence. 
They  did  my  will.  When  did  politicians  not  prefer  to 
"crook  the  pregnant  hinges  of  the  knees"  to  political 
suicide  ? 

CLEMENCEAU.  Quite  so.  All  this  is  intelligible, 
even  to  old  world  politicians.  A  former  king  of  my 
country  anticipated  you  in  his  famous  assertion  of  a 
"new  freedom" — for  himself — when  he  said  "I'etat, 
c'est  wioi."  I  think  his  successor  said,  "After  me, 
the  deluge."  But  how  did  you  reconcile  your  country- 
men to  the  new  freedom?  The  new  freedom  must 
have  succeeded  in  some  less  obvious  way. 

WILSON.  I  discovered  the  vulnerable  heel  of  that 
Achilles  of  government,  the  United  States.  It  was  its 
fixed  tenure  of  office.  My  people  are  a  practical  one 
and  make  little  fuss  over  anything  that  cannot  be  im- 
mediately remedied.  They  prefer  inaction  to  im- 
potent action.  Given  a  fixed  tenure  of  office  and  the 
immeasurable  power  of  a  Chief  Executive,  and  I  knew 
that  I  could  do  much  which,  in  a  parliamentary  form 
of  government,  would  be  impracticable.  Impeachment 
was  too  slow  and  hazardous  a  process  to  be  a  cor- 
rective. Given  a  fixed  tenure  of  office  for  four  years, 
I  could  easily  make  it  eight  years,  and  in  that  time  I 
could  concentrate  such  power  in  the  Executive  that  my 
will  would  be  supreme.  With  a  fixed  tenure  of  office, 
parliamentary  government  exists  in  form,  but  not  in 
substance.  Congress  becomes  mere  clay  for  me  to 
mold  into  such  shape  as  pleases  me.  My  only  weak- 
ness is  once  in  four  years,  when  a  reelection  is  neces- 
sary. It  is  not  that  the  American  people  are  fatalists, 
so  much  as  that  they  are  realists,  and  they  accept  what 

[40] 


MR.  WILSON  EXPLAINS  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

they  cannot  promptly  defeat.  My  predecessors,  with 
their  old-fashioned  respect  for  a  governmental  system 
of  checks  and  balances,  had  not  realized  this.  Unable 
to  displace  me  until  the  expiration  of  my  term  of 
office,  I  enjoyed  a  power  which  even  the  German 
Kaiser  did  not  have  in  like  measure. 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  You  amaze  us.  We  had  supposed 
that  a  rigid  Constitution,  subject  to  interpretation  and 
enforcement  by  your  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  would  have  been  less  easily  changed.  Was 
this  your  only  method?  For,  if  so,  it  would  seem  to 
us,  accustomed  as  we  are  to  parliamentary  forms  of 
government,  that,  sooner  or  later,  your  Congress  would 
have,  challenged  your  assertion  of  almost  absolute 
power.  In  my  country,  we  have  no  constitutional  limi- 
tations in  the  true  sense,  and  yet  the  power  of  the 
House  of  Commons  over  the  purse  of  the  nation  has 
held  kings  in  check,  even  in  the  time  of  seemingly 
arbitrary  power.  How  could  you  avoid  those  Con- 
stitutional requirements  which  make  the  office  of 
President  dependent  upon  Congress,  not  merely  in  the 
matter  of  appropriations,  but  even  in  the  matter  of  ap- 
pointment? Take,  for  example,  the  matter  of  foreign 
relations.  We  have  noted  with  interest  that  the  Presi- 
dent must  not  only  get  the  consent  of  the  Senate  to 
the  appointment  of  an  ambassador  or  minister,  but 
even  an  insignificant  consul  in  the  remotest  corner  of 
the  world  cannot  be  appointed  by  you  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  Senate.  This  would  seem  to  us  to  give  the 
Senate  a  very  practical  and  far-reaching  control  of  the 
Executive's  conduct  of  foreign  relations. 

WILSON.  Under  the  theory  of  the  Constitution, 
[41]  " 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

your  observations  would  be  fully  justified.  But  I  de- 
veloped a  plan  which  enabled  me,  in  the  matter  of 
foreign  relations,  to  govern  the  United  States  outside 
of  the  Constitution. 

CLEMENCEAU.  You  deeply  interest  us.  How  did 
you  do  that?  We  sit  as  Saul  at  the  feet  of  Gamaliel 
to  learn  how  written  constitutions  can  be  overcome  by 
indirection. 

WILSON.  It  was  very  simple,  and  it  is  passing 
strange  that  the  possibility  of  an  extra-Constitutional 
government  did  not  occur  to  any  of  my  predecessors, 
especially  those  of  imperious  will,  like  Andrew  Jack- 
son. In  the  six  years  that  I  have  been  President  of 
the  United  States,  I  have  controlled  its  foreign  re- 
lations and  even,  to  some  extent,  its  domestic  policies 
by  appointing,  on  my  own  responsibility,  officials  who, 
not  being  created  either  by  the  Constitution  or  by  the 
Congress,  were  responsible  only  to  me.  Under  the 
archaic  theory  of  the  Constitution,  the  power  was 
vested  in  Congress  "to  make  all  such  laws  which  shall 
be  necessary  and  proper  for  carrying  into  execution 
the  foregoing  powers,  and  all  other  powers  vested  by 
this  Constitution  in  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  or  in  any  department  or  officer  thereof."  Under 
this  power,  the  great  departments  of  the  government, 
whose  responsible  heads  constitute  the  so-called 
"Cabinet,"  were  created  by  Congress.  Thus,  Congress 
provided  at  the  beginning  of  the  government  that  there 
should  be  "at  the  seat  of  government  an  executive  de- 
partment, to  be  known  as  the  Department  of  State,  and 
a  Secretary  of  State,  who  shall  be  the  head  thereof." 
It  is  true  that  I  nominate  the  head  of  the  department; 

[42] 


MR.  WILSON  EXPLAINS  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

but  the  nomination  is  subject  to  the  consent  of  the  Sen- 
ate, and  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  Secretary  oi 
State  are  determined  by  Congress.  Under  this  theory, 
the  members  of  my  Cabinet  are  not  my  secretaries  and 
subordinates ;  but  they  are  servants  of  the  government 
with  rights,  duties  and  limitations  prescribed  by  Con- 
gress. If  Congress  required  them  to  do  a  certain  act 
or  to  refrain  from  doing  a  certain  act,  then  the  Cabinet 
officer  must  obey  the  command  or  respect  the  limita- 
tion, without  regard  to  my  wishes.  If,  for  example, 
Congress  prohibited  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
from  compromising  a  claim  against  the  United  States 
except  with  the  advice  of  the  Attorney  General,  the 
Constitution,  theoretically,  deprives  me  of  power  to 
direct  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  compromise 
the  claim  on  my  own  direction.  While  the  members 
of  my  Cabinet,  being  a  part  of  the  Executive  branch 
of  the  government,  are  theoretically  subject  to  my  di- 
rections, yet  my  directions  are  theoretically  limited  by 
the  power  vested  in  such  heads  of  departments  by  Con- 
gress and  the  limitations  which  it  prescribes  with  ref- 
erence to  specific  acts. 

All  this  is  destructive  of  the  power  which  the  Presi- 
dent should  have.  It  is  Newtonian,  and  not  Dar- 
winian. It  vainly  attempts  to  confine  the  Executive 
and  the  Legislative  branches  within  their  prescribed 
orbits. 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  This  is  very  interesting.  But  how 
did  you  overcome  the  difficulty  which  presented  so 
serious  a  limitation  to  your  power  ? 

WILSON.  The  solution  was  very  simple.  I  con- 
verted a  Newtonian  form  into  a  Darwinian,  and,  in  the 

[43] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

struggle  for  existence  between  the  different  branches 
of  the  Government,  proved  myself  the  fittest  to  sur- 
vive by  creating  an  extra-Constitutional  government, 
which  was  directly  responsible  to  me.  I  left  to  the 
heads  of  the  Departments  the  minor  details  of  gov- 
ernment; but  I  assumed  sole  responsibility  for  the 
larger  public  policies  of  the  state  and  conducted  them 
through  agents  who  were  solely  responsible  to  me.  I 
compelled  Congress  to  be  the  instrument  of  its  own 
undoing  by  inducing  them  to  pass  some  fifty  special 
war  emergency  bills,  which  virtually  gave  to  me  almost 
unlimited  powers  of  administration.  Under  these 
powers,  I  was  enabled  to  build  up  my  extra-Constitu- 
tional government. 

To  Mr.  Gompers,  for  example,  I  assigned  all  ques- 
tions which  concerned  labor,  and  I  identified  myself 
with  his  great  organization  by  appearing  in  person 
before  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  at  its  annual 
convention.  I  insured  the  cooperation  of  labor  by  at 
that  time  acknowledging  the  political  partnership  which 
existed  between  Mr.  Gompers  and  myself. 

Then  I  created  the  War  Industries  Board  and 
placed  my  most  capable  friend,  Mr.  Bernard  Baruch, 
as  its  executive  head.  This  gave  me  almost  as  com- 
plete control  of  capital  as  I  already  enjoyed,  through 
Mr.  Gompers,  over  labor. 

I  took  over  the  railroads  and  put  them  into  the  con- 
trol of  my  son-in-law,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
My  enemies  allege  that  I  thus  sought  to  convince  the 
people  of  the  folly  of  government  ownership  of  rail- 
roads by  a  practical  demonstration  of  its  maximum 
incompetence.  Such  is  not  the  case.  I  wanted  among 

[44] 


MR.  WILSON  EXPLAINS  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

other  reasons  to  control  the  subject  of  wages.  I  won 
my  last  election  by  that  means. 

To  Mr.  Burleson,  my  very  competent  Postmaster- 
General,  I  allocated  the  telegraph  and  telephone  lines. 

After  the  war  had  ended,  I  assumed  control  of  the 
cable  lines  and  thus  controlled  the  transmission  of  news 
from  the  old  world  to  the  new. 

Thus  I  obtained  a  control  over  business  such 
as  my  predecessors  never  enjoyed,  and  the  so- 
called  "captains  of  industry"  were  compelled  to  dance 
to  the  tune  which  I  piped, — and  a  merry  dance  it  was. 

Then  I  secured  from  Congress  a  confidential  fund, 
to  be  disposed  of  by  me  in  my  discretion.  It  amounted 
to  one  hundred  millions  of  dollars,  and  was  therefore 
far  larger  than  the  annual  expenses  of  the  Federal 
Government  in  the  first  half  of  my  nation's  history. 

I  created  the  Bureau  of  Public  Information,  and 
placed  George  Creel,  a  very  capable  panegyrist,  at  its 
head,  and  thenceforth,  no  circus  ever  had  a  more  en- 
terprising press  agent.  With  the  paeans  of  praise  which 
he  sounded  in  my  honor  in  every  part  of  the  world 
and  with  the  suppression  of  criticism  through  the 
Espionage  Laws,  and  my  control  of  the  telegraphs, 
telephones,  and  cables,  it  was  not  difficult  for  me  to 
create  a  public  opinion  which  was  irresistible. 

I  had  become  the  master  of  America,  and,  as  you  well 
know,  the  potential  dictator  of  world  policies.  The 
triumph  of  the  Darwinian  theory  was  complete. 

CLEMENCEAU.  But  your  Senate,  Mr.  President, 
could  not  have  abdicated  its  authority,  especially  in 
the  matter  of  your  foreign  relations,  in  a  world  crisis 
where  power  was  so  tempting  and  inviting. 

us] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

WILSON.  It  was  in  this  respect  that  I  won  my 
greatest  triumph.  I  determined  and  I  succeeded  in 
dictating  the  foreign  policies  of  the  Government  wholly 
on  my  own  responsibility.  In  all  previous  crises  in 
the  foreign  relations  of  America,  my  predecessors  had 
weakly  consulted  the  Senate,  and,  formally  or  in- 
formally, obtained  its  consent  to  the  policy  which  the 
Executive  followed.  I  ignored  the  Senate.  I  an- 
nounced the  policy  of  my  Fourteen  Points  in  the  name 
of  America,  without  consulting  it.  I  created  an  extra- 
Constitutional  State  Department,  of  which  I  appointed 
my  close  personal  friend,  Colonel  Edward  M.  House, 
as  the  head.  His  apartment  in  New  York  became 
known  as  the  "American  Downing  Street."  I  virtually 
made  him  a  super-Secretary  of  State  and  super- Am- 
bassador to  All  Countries,  and  you  will  agree  with  me 
that  his  status  as  such  was  recognized  in  all  your 
chancelleries. 

CLEMENCEAU.  Did  you  send  his  name  to  the  Sen- 
ate for  its  approval  ? 

WILSON.  Certainly  not.  Colonel  House  was  my 
own  appointee.  He  did  not  owe  his  status  to  Con- 
gress and  was  not  subject  to  the  limitations  which  that 
body  had  placed  upon  the  Department  of  State.  Thus, 
I  have  been  enabled  to  conduct  the  most  delicate  and 
important  negotiations  outside  of  the  State  Depart- 
ment and  in  a  manner  that  gave  me  a  freedom  that  my 
predecessors  never  enjoyed. 

I  first  tested  the  sentiment  of  my  countrymen  with 
respect  to  this  new  method  of  conducting  our  foreign 
relations  in  the  first  hours  of  my  administration 
in  the  Mexican  embroglio.  The  Government  had  a 

[46] 


MR.  WILSON  EXPLAINS  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

diplomatic  representative  in  the  City  of  Mexico,  who 
had  been  nominated  by  the  President  and  confirmed  by 
the  Senate.  It  was  my  desire  to  displace  the  President 
of  Mexico,  whose  actions  were  very  offensive  to  me. 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  You  deeply  interest  us,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent. The  citizens  of  my  country  have  nearly  a 
billion  dollars  of  investments  in  Mexico  and  they  have 
suffered  grave  injuries  from  the  disorder  that  there 
prevailed.  Your  handling  of  the  Mexican  problem  is 
therefore  of  deep  interest  to  us.  What  was  your  real 
objection  to  Huerta? 

WILSON.  He  had  a  refractory  method  of  talking 
back  to  me,  which  I  did  not  like.  He  was  a  strange 
man  and  little  appreciated  my  efforts  to  secure  a  bet- 
ter government  for  Mexico.  You  will  be  surprised  to 
know  that,  after  I  had  disclaimed  any  intention  to 
intervene  in  the  internal  affairs  of  Mexico,  and  after  I 
had  expressed  my  most  "scrupulous  regard  for  the 
sovereignty  and  independence  of  Mexico/'  and  had 
merely  suggested  to  Huerta  that  Mexico  should  forth- 
with hold  another  election  for  the  Chief  Magistracy, 
in  which  he  should  not  be  a  candidate,  he  resented  this 
and  was  bold  enough  to  assert  the  right  of  the  Re- 
public of  Mexico  to  have  such  government  as  it 
pleased,  to  hold  an  election  and  to  elect  whom  it 
pleased.  I  resented  the  effrontery  of  this  reply.  In 
my  classrooms  at  Bryn  Mawr  and  Princeton,  it  had 
not  been  my  custom  to  tolerate  back  talk  from  those 
who  listened  to  my  words  of  instruction. 

All  this,  I  communicated  to  them  not  through  the 
regular  representative  of  the  United  States  in  Mexico, 
but  through  a  special  representative,  whom  I  sent  there 

[47] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

upon  my  own  responsibility  and  without  consulting  the 
Senate. 

CLEMEN CEAU.  All  this  is  very  interesting.  We,  in 
the  Old  World,  had  been  puzzled  as  to  the  exact  status 
of  your  Colonel  House.  He  came  to  us  in  1915  arid 
1916,  and  apparently  the  ambassadors  and  ministers 
which  your  country  had  sent  to  our  governments  be- 
came junctus  officio,  and  we  were  left  to  deal  with 
Colonel  House;  and  yet  we  were  ignorant  as  to  the 
scope  of  his  authority.  We  now  understand  it  better. 

WILSON.  Yes;  the  Colonel  was  very  useful  to  me. 
He  never  talked  back.  His  mind  ran  fully  along  with 
mine.  As  the  war  clouds  gathered,  he  agreed  with  me 
as  to  their  shape,  whether  I  thought  they  looked  like  a 
camel,  a  weasel,  or  a  whale.  His  whole-hearted  en- 
thusiasm in  accepting  my  point  of  view  I  shall  always 
gratefully  remember.  I  sent  him  to  Berlin  during  the 
winter  of  1914-15,  and  suggested  to  the  German  Gov- 
ernment that  I  could  make  peace  for  them  if  they 
abandoned  the  war,  by  giving  them  the  freedom  of  the 
seas. 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  Yes;  we  marked  that.  Did  your 
Excellency  appreciate  that  the  "  freedom  of  the  seas," 
as  Germany  defined  the  doctrine,  meant  the  destruction 
of  the  naval  power  of  England,  and  therefore  the  de- 
struction of  my  nation  as  a  power  of  the  first  rank? 

WILSON.  I  wished  to  end  the  war,  and  the  freedom 
of  the  seas,  whatever  its  consequences,  was  a  small 
price  to  pay.  The  fact  that  it  was  your  country  which 
would  have  paid  the  price  is  of  minor  importance.  Un- 
fortunately, your  country  was  unwilling  to  accept  this 
attempt  to  bring  about  a  peace  without  victory — ex- 

[48] 


MR.  WILSON  EXPLAINS  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

cept  for  Germany — and  I  therefore  sent  Colonel  House 
a  second  time  to  Berlin,  in  January,  1916.  I  found  its 
government  quite  willing  to  use  my  good  offices  to 
bring  about  a  "peace  without  victory,"  provided  that 
Germany  received  suitable  reparations,  guaranties,  and, 
above  all,  the  freedom  of  the  seas. 

On  his  return  from  Berlin,  I  put  Colonel  House 
into  communication  with  the  German  Ambassador, 
Count  von  Bernstorff.  The  advantage  of  my  extra- 
Constitutional  State  Department  then  became  mani- 
fest. The  eyes  of  my  country  and  of  the  world  were 
upon  the  State  Department,  and  the  occasional  pro- 
nunciamentos  which  it  issued  over  Mr.  Lansing's 
name — most  of  which  I  wrote — were  given  a  con- 
sideration which  they  did  not  deserve.  My  real  nego- 
tiations to  bring  about  a  "peace  without  victory"  were 
with  the  German  Ambassador,  through  the  serviceable 
Colonel  House.  My  choice  was  admirable.  Bernstorff 
accredited  House  to  his  Foreign  Office  as  "wholly 
neutral,  very  discreet  and  deserving." 

In  the  autumn  of  1916,  we  had  reached  an  under- 
standing that  I  was  to  negotiate  a  movement  for  a 
peace  conference  to  end  the  war.  The  exigencies  of 
the  presidential  election  compelled  me  to  defer  it. 
Imagine  my  surprise  when  the  German  Government, 
contrary  to  our  understanding  and  entirely  anticipating 
my  peace  overtures,  proposed  a  peace  conference  on 
December  I2th!  Ignoring  this  attempt,  I,  on  De- 
cember 1 8th,  took  the  first  step  to  sound  public  opinion 
by  my  note  of  that  date,  in  which  I  suggested  that  the 
belligerents  were,  on  their  own  statements,  fighting 
for  the  same  principles.  Unfortunately  my  misguided 

[49] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

countrymen  did  not  receive  my  efforts  with  approval, 
and  your  Governments  rejected  the  idea  of  a  confer- 
ence at  a  time  when,  as  you  claimed,  the  German 
Kaiser  was  in  a  position  to  rattle  his  saber  at  the  con- 
ference table.  I  thereupon,  on  January  22nd,  made  my 
great  address  to  the  Senate,  in  which  I  publicly  ad- 
vocated a  "peace  without  victory,"  a  peace  where  there 
would  be  no  victors  or  vanquished. 

CLEMENCEAU.  Did  your  Excellency  really  believe 
that  England  and  France,  after  each  had  sacrificed  a 
million  lives  and  uncounted  billions  of  treasure,  would 
have  accepted  such  a  peace,  which  would  have  brought 
to  nought  our  sacrifices  of  a  million  lives  ? 

WILSON.  What  could  you  do  when  I  demanded  it? 
You  knew  and  I  knew  that,  without  the  raw  materials, 
the  manufactures,  and  food  supplies  from  America, 
you  could  not  continue  the  war.  A  word  from  me 
to  Congress,  and  an  embargo  would  have  been  placed 
upon  all  exports  to  the  belligerent  nations.  I  knew 
my  power.  Imagine,  then,  my  amazement  when  the 
German  Government,  notwithstanding  this  promising 
movement  towards  "peace  without  victory,"  on  Janu- 
ary 3  ist,  canceled  the  submarine  pledges  and  created 
in  America  such  a  storm  of  indignation  that  even  I 
was  unable  to  control  it.  Nothing  remained  for  me 
to  do  but  to  give  Count  von  Bernstorff  his  passports. 
While  my  efforts  to  bring  the  war  to  an  end  under 
conditions  that  would  have  left  neither  victors  nor 
vanquished  were  thus  defeated  by  the  incredible 
stupidity  and  ingratitude  of  the  German  Government, 
yet  the  value  of  my  extra-Constitutional  State  Depart- 
ment appeared  strikingly  manifested  by  the  fact  that 

[50] 


MR.  WILSON  EXPLAINS  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

all  of  the  negotiations  between  Colonel  House  and 
Count  von  Bernstorff  had  been  kept  a  profound  secret. 
My  neutrality  remained  uncompromised.  I  there- 
fore continued  Colonel  House  as  my  super-Sec- 
retary of  State  and  super- Ambassador  to  all  countries, 
and,  in  this  way,  secured  a  domination  over  the  affairs 
of  the  world  that  I  can  proudly  say  none  of  my  pred- 
ecessors ever  enjoyed.  Long  before  the  Armistice, 
my  worthy  subordinate  was  organizing  an  elaborate 
department  for  the  peace  negotiations,  which,  at  the 
time  of  the  Armistice,  had  numbered  hundreds  of  ex- 
perts, who  have,  as  you  know,  accompanied  me  on  my 
great  armada  to  your  shores.  As  a  matter  of  form, 
I  have  brought  Mr.  Lansing  with  me;  but  you  will 
see  that  Mr.  Lansing  will  know  little  and  Colonel 
House  will  know  much,  during  the  progress  of  the 
negotiations  that  are  before  us,  of  my  intentions. 

I  have  thus  shown  that  I  can  conduct  the  foreign 
affairs  of  the  government  without  the  advice  and  con- 
sent of  the  Senate,  and  through  personal  appointees 
in  whose  selection  the  Senate  has  no  voice.  This  has 
given  me  a  great  power,  which  has  brought  me  the 
enthusiastic  acclaims  of  men  of  all  nations.  Under 
the  Newtonian  theory,  it  would  have  been  impossible. 
Under  the  Darwinian  theory,  it  is  but  the  "survival 
of  the  fittest."  Thus,  in  the  long  contest  between  the 
Congress  and  the  Executive,  which  has  marked  the 
history  of  the  American  Government  from  its  be- 
ginning, I  am  triumphant. 

CLEMENCEAU.  We,  in  turn,  cannot  regret  the  turn 
of  affairs  which  the  stupidity  of  our  enemy  brought 
about;  for,  great  as  were  your  intended  services  in 

[51] 


I 
THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

peace,  they  were  even  far  greater  in  war,  after  you 
had  brought  your  country  into  the  conflict. 

WILSON.  Yes;  it  is  a  matter  of  regret  that  I  did 
not  earlier  get  into  the  war;  for  I  should  have  brought 
it  to  a  speedier  conclusion.  "Until  the  advent  of 
America  in  the  war,  the  Allied  armies  were  inspired 
by  no  high  ideals  and  were  fighting  with  lowered  heads, 
and  it  was  not  until  they  heard  the  accents  of  Amer- 
ica's ideals  that  they  lifted  their  heads  and  raised  their 
eyes  to  Heaven,  and " 

CLEMENCEAU.  And  you  say  this  to  us,  who  repre- 
sent the  heroes  of  the  Marne,  of  Ypres,  and  of  Verdun. 
When  my  poilus  were  saying  to  the  armed  millions  of 
Germany,  "You  shall  not  pass/'  your  ideal,  as  I  recall 
it,  was  that  there  was  such  a  thing  as  "being  too  proud 
to  fight." 

WILSON.  You  interrupt  me.  When,  under  my 
leadership,  my  armies  came  to  your  aid,  "they  were 
not  like  any  other  soldiers;  they  had  a  vision  and  were 
fighting  in  a  dream,  and  they  turned  the  whole  tide  of 
battle,  and  it  never  came  back." 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  But,  Mr.  President,  you  will  ad- 
mit the  services  of  Great  Britain's  navy?  They 
guarded  your  coasts  as  well  as  those  of  all  the  Allied 
nations.  On  all  the  waters  of  the  high  seas  of  all  the 
world  they  kept  watch  and  ward. 

WILSON  [Calmly'].  Even  while  I  was  typing  my 
momentous  addresses  on  the  pride  which  will  not 
fight  and  a  peace  without  victory,  I  was  "greatly  sur- 
prised at  the  failure  of  the  British  Admiralty  to  use 
Great  Britain's  naval  superiority  in  an  effective  way. 
I  noticed  that  your  Admiralty  was  helpless,  to  the 

[52] ' 


MIR.  WILSON  EXPLAINS  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

point  of  panic."  Even  after  our  entry  into  the  war,  my 
Secretary  of  the  Navy  made  many  suggestions,  which 
they  rejected  for  some  reason  of  prudence.  That  your 
Jellicoes,  Beattys,  Beresfords  and  Fishers  were  un- 
willing to  be  guided  by  me  and  Daniels  seemed  very 
strange.  To  me,  it  was  clear  that  it  was  not  a  time 
for  prudence,  but  for  boldness,  even  at  the  cost  of  great 
losses.  For  my  part,  I  should  willingly  have  sacrificed 
half  of  our  fleet  and  half  of  your  fleet  to  end  the  sub- 
marine peril. 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  Your  willingness  to  make  this 
sacrifice  is  very  magnanimous.  The  only  difficulty  is 
that  your  nation  had  few,  if  any,  of  its  battleships  or 
larger  cruisers  in  the  zone  of  peril,  and,  had  we  fol- 
lowed your  suggestion  of  a  massed  attack  upon  the 
submarine  bases,  we  might  have  lost  the  flower  of  our 
fleet,  and  you,  some  smaller  cruisers  and  torpedo  chas- 
ers. However,  it  is  a  matter  of  regret  that  our  Ad- 
miralty did  not  have  the  great  advantage  of  your 
presence  in  London;  for  then  our  timidity  and  over- 
weaning  prudence  would  have  vanished. 

[Outside  of  the  hall  are  heard  loud  cries  of  "WIL- 
SON! WILSON!  Vive  le  President  des  Etats  Unis!" 
Enter  CLEMENCEAU'S  secretary.} 

SECRETARY.  Your  Excellency,  great  crowds  are 
massed  outside  and  are  loudly  calling  for  President 
Wilson. 

[WILSON  rises  and  assumes  the  pose  of  an  inspired 
proplietJ] 

WILSON.  Pardon  me,  gentlemen.  The  voice  of 
the  people  calls  me.  Their  will  must  be  respected, 

[53] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

even  if  governments  are  broken.  The  voice  of  the 
people  is  the  voice  of  God.  "I  would  a  great  deal 
rather  know  what  the  men  on  the  train,  by  the  way- 
side, in  the  shops  and  on  the  farms  are  thinking  about 
and  yearning  for  than  hear  any  of  the  vociferous 
proclamations  of  policy  which  it  is  so  easy  to  hear  and 
so  easy  to  read  by  taking  up  any  scrap  of  printed 
paper."1 

CLEMENCEAU.  Is  not  that  a  little  hard  on  the  rep- 
resentatives of  the  people?  I  am  old-fashioned  enough 
to  deal  with  them,  rather  than  with  the  men  in  the 
street. 

WILSON.  I  cannot  agree  with  you.  We  must  con- 
stantly renew  our  contacts  with  the  people.  "Unless  a 
man  gets  these  contacts,  he  grows  weaker  and  weaker. 
*  *  *  He  needs  them  as  Hercules  needed  the  touch  of 
Mother  Earth.  If  you  lift  him  up  too  high,  or  he  lifts 
himself  too  high,  he  loses  the  contact,  and  therefore 
loses  the  inspiration."2 

CLEMENCEAU.  May  I  venture  to  suggest  to  so 
great  a  scholar  as  the  former  president  of  Princeton 
University  that  it  was  not  Hercules  who  needed  the 
contact  with  his  Mother  Earth,  but  Antaeus,  and  that 
Hercules  slew  Antaeus  by  holding  him  up  in  the  air 
until  he  grew  weak,  and  then  dashed  him  to  the 
ground.  I  hope,  for  all  our  sakes,  that  your  classical 
allusion  may  not  prove  to  be  a  more  telling  analogy 
than  we  had  anticipated;  for  your  American  Consti- 
tution is  generally  reputed  by  students  of  government 

1  Address  of  Wilson  on  February  26,  1916,  Congressional  Rec- 
ord, Vol.  LIII,  p.  3308. 

'Wilson's   address  at  Congress    Hall,    Philadelphia,    Oct.   25, 
»  Congressional  Record,  Vol.  L,  p.  5809. 

[54] 


MB.  WILSON  EXPLAINS  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

as  a  Hercules,  and,  if  I  correctly  understand  its  funda- 
mental philosophy,  it  was  conceived  in  a  spirit  of  dis- 
trust towards  unrestrained  democracy,  and  its  pro- 
visions, like  the  mighty  muscles  of  Hercules,  have 
from  time  to  time  first  held  aloft  and  then  thrown 
statesmen  who,  like  Antaeus,  found  their  strength  in 
contact  with  that  most  elusive  and  uncertain  entity  that 
we  call  "the  people." 

[WILSON  glares  at  CLEMENCEAU,  who  calmly  folds 
his  hands,  covered  with  suede  gloves,  upon  his  knees 
and  whose  faced  drops  upon  his  breast  in  a  prophetic 
reverie.] 

BALFOUR  [Seeking  to  relieve  a  tense  situation] .  Your 
classical  allusion,  Mr.  President,  is  delightful,  even 
though  a  little  inaccurate.  I  have  noted  in  your  par- 
liamentary discourses  an  unusual  characteristic,  and 
that  is  that  you  rarely  quote  any  one.  Except  for  some 
passing  references  in  earlier  writings  to  Bagehot  and 
your  effective  use  of  Luther's  famous  phrase  at  the 
Diet  of  Worms,  in  your  war  address,  I  cannot  recall 
an  instance  in  which  you  have  supported  a  view  by 
quoting  some  great  authority. 

WILSON.  I  do  not  quote;  I  am  quoted.  But  the 
crowd  still  calls  me.  Pardon  me,  if,  like  Antaeus,  I 
renew  my  contact  with  the  people,  and  [looking  sternly 
at  CLEMENCEAU]  no  Hercules  will  break  my  strength. 

[He  goes  out  on  a  balcony  and  addresses  the  multi- 
tude.'] 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  An  extraordinary  colleague,  our 
American  President.  His  "voices  in  the  air"  seem 

[55] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

to  be  the  voice  of  the  mob;  his  "vision/'  that  of  the 
typical  exploiter  of  mob  passion.  But  the  masses  ac- 
claim him  as  their  hero. 

CLEMENCEAU.  They  also  acclaimed  Dr.  Cook, — 
for  a  time.  Did  not  the  Greeks  say  that  "  the  laughter 
of  the  Gods  is  fatal  to  those  who  incite  it"  ? 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  Is  he  not  the  most  egocentric  of 
statesmen,  unless  we  except  the  German  Kaiser.  I 
recall  the  words  that  Sidney  Smith  once  wrote  of  Lord 
John  Russell: 

"There  is  nothing  he  would  not  undertake.  I  be- 
lieve he  would  perform  an  operation  for  stone,  build 
St.  Peter's,  assume  (with  or  without  ten  months' 
notice)  the  command  of  the  Channel  Fleet;  and  no  one 
would  discover  from  his  manner  that  the  patient  had 
died,  that  St.  Peter's  had  tumbled  down,  and  that  the 
Channel  Fleet  had  been  knocked  to  atoms." 

CLEMENCEAU.  An  apt  quotation.  Only  the  Presi- 
dent would  complain  of  such  a  limit  upon  his  versatile 
capabilities.  We  spoke,  a  little  while  ago,  of  our  di- 
vision of  the  world  and  reminded  ourselves  of  Pompey, 
Caesar  and  Crassus.  Our  friend's  assumed  over-lord- 
ship reminds  me  of  an  analogy  from  classical  myth- 
ology. You  will  remember  that  Jove  made  a  similar 
division  among  an  Olympian  triumvirate.  To  Nep- 
tune, he  assigned  the  sea;  to  Pluto,  the  lower  regions; 
but,  for  himself,  he  claimed  the  rest  of  the  earth,  with 
an  over-lordship  over  Neptune  and  Pluto.  Our 
friend's  conception  of  his  place  in  Paris  is  not  dis- 
similar. To  England,  he  assigns  the  role  of  Neptune; 
to  France,  continental  Europe,  which,  in  its  present 
chaos,  is  not  unsuggestive  of  the  Plutonic  realm ;  while 


MR.  WILSON  EXPLAINS  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

for  himself,  he  reserves  the  control  of  the  sunlit  earth, 
with  himself  playing  the  role  of  Jove.  [Loud  cheers 
are  heard:  "Vive  Wilson!"]  Our  friend  returns. 

[Door  opens  and  the  President  smilingly  enter s.~\ 

WILSON.  I  have  responded  to  their  noble  en- 
thusiasm. When  I  see  the  confidence  they  repose  in 
me  and  the  power  that  it  gives  me  to  destroy  any 
government  which  opposes  the  people,  I  tremble  at 
my  own  power.  "The  way  to  success  is  to  show  that 
you  are  not  afraid  of  anybody,  except  God  and  His 
final  verdict.  If  I  did  not  believe  in  that,  I  would  not 
believe  in  democracy."1 

[Door  opens  and  CLEMENCEAU'S  secretary  again 
enters] 

SECRETARY.  Your  Excellency,  a  delegation  is  in 
an  ante-chamber,  which  insists  upon  seeing  President 
Wilson.  They  claim  that  he  promised  to  see  them  in 
Paris,  before  the  Peace  Conference. 

WILSON.  Who  are  they  that  thus  intrude  upon  this 
inner  conference  where  we  are  openly  arriving  at  open 
covenants  ? 

SECRETARY.  They  say  they  are  a  delegation  of  the 
Irish  people.  Their  names  are  Messieurs  Dunne,  Ryan 
and  Walsh. 

WILSON.     Is  Colonel  House  there? 

SECRETARY.  Yes;  he  is  talking  with  them  and  en- 
deavoring to  dissuade  them  from  insisting  upon  a; 
conference. 

1  Address  on  July  4,  1914,  at  Philadelphia,  Congressional  Rec- 
ord, Vol.  LI,  App.  707. 

[57] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

WILSON.  Oh!  that  Tumulty  were  here.  Tell  House 
to  keep  them  for  ten  minutes. 

[Exit  secretary.'] 

WILSON  [Turning  to  CLEMENCEAU].  Is  there  any 
private  exit  from  this  room?  I  have  another  engage- 
ment and  I  do  not  care  to  see  these  worthy  gentlemen 
from  America.  They  come  to  plead  for  a  free  Irish 
Republic.  "It  is  not  men  that  interest  or  disturb  me 
primarily;  it  is  ideas.  Ideas  live;  men  die."  I  cannot 
discuss  the  idea  of  an  Irish  Republic  at  this  time. 
Let  me  out  the  side  door. 

CLEMENCEAU  [Turning  to  a  door.]  This  way,  your 
Excellency.  We  will  meet  again  in  the  near  future, 
and,  in  the  meantime,  I  wish  you  a  happy  deliverance 
from  your  difficulties  with  the  Irish  delegation. 

[Exit  MR.  WILSON.] 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  The  supreme  egotist,  as  your  Ex- 
cellency has  defined  him,  seems  to  recognize  one  power 
stronger  than  his  own. 

CLEMENCEAU.  The  Irish  vote?  I  thought  he 
feared  nothing  but  God. 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  So  Bismarck  said  of  his  Prussia; 
but  he  feared  the  Socialists,  as  our  American  friend 
fears  his  Irish  fellow  citizens. 

CLEMENCEAU.  I  cannot  understand  your  concern 
and  that  of  our  valorous  American  idealist  in  the  mat- 
ter of  Irish  aspirations.  Your  difficulties  with  the 
Irish  people  could  be  your  greatest  asset,  and,  appro-, 
priately  exploited,  would  go  far  to  pay  your  national 
debt 

[58] 


MB,  WILSON  EXPLAINS  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

LLOYD  GEORGE.     I  fail  to  understand  you. 

CLEMENCEAU.  My  suggestion  would  be  that  you 
recognize  an  Irish  Republic — but  reserve  the  moving 
picture  rights.  Their  commercial  value  would  go  far 
to  relieve  the  anxiety  of  your  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer. 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  I  fear  that  Mr.  Wilson  has  pre- 
empted that  field. 

CLEMENCEAU.  Well,  we  have  had  a  lesson  in  Con- 
stitutional government,  and  we  can  now:  understand 
much  that  was  unintelligible  to  us  before  America's 
entry  into  the  war.  However,  we  dare  not  offend  our 
friend;  for  he  represents  her  power  and  resources. 

I  have  lived  in  America,  and  I  know  the  passionate 
devotion  of  its  people  to  their  Constitution.  For  a  time 
— and  especially  during  the  period  of  a  war — they  will 
remain  silent  while  the  Great  Charter  which  their 
fathers  gave  them  is  treated  as  a  "scrap  of  paper." 
But  they  are  not  fooled  forever. 

Slowly  but  surely  that  mighty  Hercules,  the  Ameri- 
can people,  will  hold  our  would-be  Antseus  aloft  in  the 
air,  only  to  throw  him  to  the  Mother  Earth  of  reality. 
After  that  rude  shock,  he  will  be  the  "mighty  somnam- 
bulist of  a  shattered  dream." 


[59] 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  OLD  FREEDOM 

"Liberty,  to  be  enjoyed,  must  be  limited  by  law;  for  law  ends 
where  tyranny  begins,  and  the  tyranny  is  the  same  be  it  the  tyr- 
anny of  a  monarch  or  of  a  multitude, — nay,  the  tyranny  of  the 
multitude  may  be  the  greater,  since  it  is  multiplied  tyranny." 

EDMUND  BURKE. 

Having  now  considered  the  New  Freedom,  as  ex- 
pounded by  its  foremost  apostle,  Mr.  Wilson,  let  us 
briefly  consider  and  contrast  the  Old  Freedom,  which 
was  and  fortunately  still  is. 

The  Old  Freedom  under  which  the  United  States 
has  grown  immeasurably  great  was  best  defined  by  the 
founders  of  the  American  Commonwealth  in  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States.  Those  who  framed 
that  wonderful  document  clearly  recognized  that  in 
this  democratic  age  all  governments  are  obliged  to  steer 
between  the  Scylla  of  mobocracy  and  the  Chary bdis 
of  one-man  despotism.  They  sought  to  avoid  this  by 
ordaining  the  noblest  covenant  of  government  that  the 
wit  of  man  has  yet  devised.  Nothing  was  further  from 
their  thought  than  to  give  unrestrained  power  either  to 
one  man  or  to  the  people.  The  Constitution  is  a  stand- 
ing protest  against  either  despotism. 

It  will  be  noted  that  in  the  Constitutional  Conven- 
tion the  very  great  men  who  participated  in  its  debates 
never  referred  to  democracy,  except  in  condemnation 

[60] 


THE  OLD  FREEDOM 

of  its  excesses.  The  exact  definition  which  they  gave 
to  the  word  democracy  must  be  borne  in  mind. 

Democracy,  as  they  defined  it,  was  the  direct  action 
of  the  people.  Republicanism,  as  they  defined  it  and 
of  which  the  Constitution  is  the  noblest  expression, 
was  government  by  representatives  chosen  by  the 
people.  Thus  James  Madison,  in  the  tenth  of  the  Fed- 
eralist papers,  declared  that  pure  democracies  "have 
ever  been  found  incompatible  with  personal  security, 
or  the  rights  of  property;  and  have,  in  general,  been 
as  short  in  their  lives  as  they  have  been  violent  in  their 
deaths."  Alexander  Hamilton  asserted  that  "the  mem- 
bers most  tenacious  of  republicanism  were  as  loud  as 
any  in  declaiming  against  the  evils  of  democracy," 
and  added :  "Give  all  the  power  to  the  many,  they  will 
oppress  the  few;  give  all  the  power  to  the  few,  they 
will  oppress  the  many.  Both,  therefore,  ought  to  have 
the  power,  that  each  may  defend  itself  against  the 
other."  To  establish  a  government  which  would,  in 
Hamilton's  phrase,  "unite  public  strength  with  indi- 
vidual security,"  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
was  ordained. 

When  the  Fathers  met  in  the  Constitutional  Con- 
vention of  1787,  they  determined  to  create  a  repre- 
sentative democracy,  and  not  a  direct  one.  With  full 
agreement  on  this  basic  idea,  their  final  success  was 
not  reached  without  acute  and  almost  fatal  differences 
upon  other  questions.  For  nearly  four  months  they 
labored  in  secret,  with  multiplied  and  accentuated  dif- 
ferences :  but  the  suspense  ended  and  the  crisis  passed, 
Franklin,  pointing  to  the  half-disk  of  the  sun,  painted 
on  the  chair  of  the  president  of  the  convention,  made 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

the  prophetic  remark  that,  while  he  had  often,  in  the 
weary  and  arduous  months  of  the  Convention,  won- 
dered whether  that  sun  was  a  symbol  of  a  rising  or  a 
setting  sun  for  that  America,  to  which  he  had  freely 
given  more  than  half  a  century  of  his  noble  life,  con- 
cluded : 

"But  now  at  length  I  have  the  happiness  to  know 
that  it  is  a  rising  and  not  a  setting  sun." 

To-day,  when  the  Sun,  whose  rising  Franklin  so 
clearly  saw,  is  seemingly  in  its  noontide  splendor,  with 
its  rays  illumining  the  whole  world,  we  can  see  the 
full  realization  of  the  sage's  prophecy.  Its  partial 
eclipse,  which  we  owe  to  the  "New  Freedom,"  will 
be  like  all  eclipses,  only  temporary.  Indeed  the  sun 
of  our  constitutional  freedom  emerged  in  1787  from  an 
eclipse  of  popular  government.  The  present  organic 
unity  of  the  United  States  blinds  us  to  the  terrible 
conditions  out  of  which  the  Constitution  grew,  and 
this  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  there  is  a  re- 
markable similarity  between  world  conditions  in  1787 
and  those  of  the  present  hour.  Then,  as  now,  a  world 
war  had  just  ended.  Then,  as  now,  there  had  been  a 
swift  and  terrible  reaction  in  the  souls  of  men  from 
the  nobility  of  purpose  and  the  divine  spirit  of  self- 
sacrifice  that  had  animated  the  nations  in  their  fierce 
struggle  for  existence.  As  Washington  said,  "The 
whole  world  was  in  an  uproar,"  and  again  he  said  the 
difficulty  was  "to  steer  between  Scylla  and  Charybdis." 
Especially  deplorable  were  the  conditions  in  the 
colonies  in  the  years  that  had  intervened  between  the 


THE  OLD  FREEDOM 

treaty  of  peace  and  the  meeting  of  the  Constitutional 
Convention. 

The  days  that  followed  Yorktown  were  as  truly  the 
times  "that  tried  men's  souls,"  as  the  period  of  bitter 
struggle,  when  the  fortunes  of  Washington's  little 
army  found  their  lowest  ebb  at  Valley  Forge.  In  fact, 
the  times  were  graver;  for  a  nation  can  always  resist 
external  aggression  better  than  internal  dissension. 

The  spirit  of  anarchy,  or,  as  we  would  now  say, 
Bolshevism,  had  swept  a  people  already  gravely  tried 
in  the  fiery  furnace  of  war.  , 

Credit  was  gone,  business  paralyzed,  and  lawlessness 
rampant.  Not  only  between  class  and  class,  but  be- 
tween State  and  State,  there  were  acute  controversies 
and  an  alarming  disunity  of  spirit.  The  currency  of 
the  little  nation  was  valueless.  It  had  shrunk  to  the 
nominal  ratio  of  one  cent  on  the  dollar.  Even  its 
bonds  were  sold  at  one- fourth  their  value.  The  slang 
expression,  "Not  worth  a  Continental,"  is  a  surviving 
evidence  of  the  contempt  for  the  financial  credit  of 
the  country.  Tradesmen  derisively  plastered  the  walls 
of  their  shops  with  worthless  bills.  The  armies  were 
unpaid  and  only  their  love  for  their  great  leader  kept 
them  from  open  revolt.  It  seemed  to  many — and  to 
Washington  himself — that  the  heroic  struggle  for  in- 
dependence would  end  in  a  general  fiasco,  which  would 
confound  the  lovers  of  liberty  in  every  land  and  again 
enthrone  autocracy  or  anarchy.  To  weld  thirteen  jeal- 
ous and  discordant  States,  inhabited  by  men  of  differ- 
ent races,  creeds  and  classes,  into  a  unified  and  efficient 
nation,  was  a  seemingly  impossible  task.  Its  final 

[63] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

accomplishment  blinds  us  to  the  difficulty  of  the  prob- 
lem. 

In  those  trying  times  it  was  to  Washington  that  a 
distracted  people  turned.  Having  surrendered  his  com- 
mission as  Commander-in-Chief,  he  had  retired  to 
Mount  Vernon,  believing  that  "the  noon-tide  of  life 
was  past"  and  that  all  that  remained  was  "to  glide 
quietly  down  a  stream)  which  no  human  effort  can 
ascend."  He  felt  that  his  life-work  was  over;  but 
viewed  with  acute  apprehension  the  growing  anarchy. 
At  times  even  his  brave  spirit  was  discouraged.  Writ- 
ing in  1786,  he  said: 

"I  think  often  of  our  situation,  and  view  it  with 
concern.  From  the  high  ground  we  stood  upon,  from 
the  plain  path  which  invited  our  footsteps,  to  be  so 
fallen,  so  lost,  is  mortifying;  but  everything  of  virtue 
has,  in  a  degree,  taken  its  departure  from  our  land." 

When  invited  to  attend  the  proposed  Constitutional 
Convention  in  Philadelphia,  he  at  first  declined.  Sud- 
denly the  news  of  Shay's  rebellion  in  Western  Massa- 
chusetts came  to  his  startled  ears.  It  was  essentially, 
as  we  would  now  say,  a  Bolshevist  movement,  an  up- 
rising of  debtors  to  prevent  the  collection  of  debts  or 
of  taxes.  Courts  of  law  were  seized  to  subvert  order 
and  destroy  property  rights.  The  revolution  spread 
from  Massachusetts  to  adjoining  States,  and  threat- 
ened to  strangle  the  infant  Republic  at  its  birth.  Only 
an  army  of  five  thousand  men  and  an  actual  battle 
sufficed  to  end  it.  Civil  war  had  come. 

Washington  saw  this  in  his  retirement  at  Mount 
Vernon.  With  acute  anguish  of  spirit,  he  wrote : 

[64] 


THE  OLD  FREEDOM 

"What,  gracious  God,  is  man  that  there  should  be 
such  inconsistency  and  perfidiousness  in  his  conduct? 
It  was  but  the  other  day  that  we  were  shedding  our 
blood  to  obtain  the  constitutions  under  which  we  now 
live,  and  now  we  are  unsheathing  our  swords  to  over- 
turn them.  The  thing  is  so  unaccountable  that  I 
hardly  know  how  to  realize  it  or  to  persuade  myself 
that  I  am  not  under  an  illusion  of  a  dream." 

Once  again  the  Father  of  his  people  came  to  their 
rescue.  Turning  his  back  upon  the  sweet  retirement  of 
Mount  Vernon,  which  he  had  thought  would  be  his 
solace  for  the  nine  years  of  absence  during  the  great 
struggle,  Washington  again  accepted  the  call  of  his 
country. 

So  little  was  the  interest  in  the  project  and  so  weak 
the  faith  in  the  possibility  of  any  favorable  result, 
that  only  a  few  delegates  had  arrived  on  the  day  set 
for  the  beginning  of  the  Convention  and  for  many 
days  it  was  impossible  to  secure  a  quorum,  but  when 
it  became  known  that  Washington  had  come  from 
Virginia,  it  had  the  same  inspiring  effect  as  when  he 
galloped  down  the  Freehold  road  and  rallied  his  re- 
treating army  at  the  Battle  of  Monmouth. 

While  waiting  for  enough  delegates  to  form  a  bare 
quorum  of  the  proposed  convention,  Washington 
gathered  the  faithful  few  about  him  and,  as  Gouver- 
neur  Morris  narrated  years  afterwards,  said: 

"It  is  too  probable  that  no  plan  that  we  propose  will 
be  adopted.  Perhaps  another  dreadful  conflict  is  to  be 
sustained.  If,  to  please  the  people,  we  offer  what  we 
ourselves  disapprove,  how  can  we  afterwards  defend 
our  work  ?  Let  us  raise  a  standard  to  which  the  wise 

[65] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

and  just  can  repair.     The  event  is  in  the  hand  of 
God." 

How  splendidly  his  faith  was  vindicated!  By  ap- 
pealing to  the  best  in  men,  and  not  the  worst,  a  work 
was  wrought  which  has  hitherto  endured  and  which  is 
the  admiration  of  all  men.  The  lesson  then  taught, 
which  all  generations  of  Americans  can  profitably  re- 
member, is  that  the  best-  way  to  make  democracy  prac- 
ticable is  to  trust  it  by  telling  it  the  truth.  This  the 
Fathers  did  and  their  faith  had  the  richest  reward. 

When  the  terrible  conditions  out  of  which  the  Con- 
stitution was  created  are  remembered,  one  can  para- 
phrase the  words  of  St.  Paul : 

"It  was  sown  in  corruption,  it  is  raised  in  incorrup- 
tion;  it  was  sown  in  dishonor,  it  is  raised  in  glory;  it 
was  sown  in  weakness,  it  is  raised  in  power;  it  was 
sown  a  natural  body,  it  is  raised  a  spiritual  body." 

It  is  a  spiritual  body;  for  the  Constitution  is 
something  more  than  a  written  formula  of  government. 
It  is  a  great  spirit,  the  most  quickening  that  now  exists 
in  the  world.  It  is  the  highest  assertion  and,  indeed, 
vindication,  of  the  morality  of  government  that  the 
science  of  politics  has  yet  given  to  the  world.  Under- 
lying its  formal  provisions  is  a  profound  moral  philos- 
ophy, and  it  is  this  fact  which  gives  to  its  perpetuity 
a  deep  ethical  significance.  Should  the  Constitution 
now  be  undermined  by  the  inundating  waves  of  So- 
cialism and  Bolshevism,  or  by  the  more  insidious  and 
therefore  more  dangerous  ideas  of  the  "New  Free- 
dom/' not  only  would  the  best  hope  of  man  in  political 

[66] 


THE  OLD  FREEDOM 

institutions  perish,  but  the  cause  of  righteousness  would 
suffer  in  the  destruction  of  some  of  its  basic  principles. 
The  great  purpose  of  the  Constitution  is  to  reconcile 
the  authority  of  government  with  the  rights  of  the 
individual  as  a  responsible  moral  being.  It  not  merely 
"renders  unto  Caesar  (the  political  state)  the  things 
that  are  Csesar's" ;  but,  in  safeguarding  the  fundamen- 
tal moral  rights  of  the  individual,  it  "renders  unto 
God  the  things  that  are  God's." 

It  must  not  be  understood,  however,  that  the  Con- 
stitution was  formulated  in  a  spirit  of  political  doc- 
trinarianism.  Nothing  was  further  from  its  purpose. 
Its  simplicity  and  brevity  alike  repel  the  suggestion. 
Read  as  a  mere  legal  document,  it  is  as  dry  and  pas- 
sionless as  a  manual  of  parliamentary  law.  Although 
it  represented  the  concrete  thought  of  more  than  fifty 
exceptionally  able  men,  who  had  labored  upon  it  for 
nearly  four  months,  it  contains  little  more  than  four 
thousand  words,  eighty-nine  sentences,  and  about  one 
hundred  and  forty  distinct  provisions.  No  document 
ever  set  forth  more  simply  and  briefly  a  comprehensive 
scheme  of  government. 

None  of  its  provisions  even  remotely  suggests  a 
speculative  political  philosophy  or  theoretical  abstrac- 
tions. The  men  who  framed  it  were  very  practical 
men,  and  they  were  never  more  practical  than  when 
they  formulated  this  wonderful  instrument  of  govern- 
ment. They  saw  no  visions  and  heard  no  voices  in 
the  air. 

In  1776  the  task  was  to  make  America  safe  for 
democracy;  in  1787  it  was  to  make  democracy  safe 
for  America.  The  latter  was  the  more  difficult  task. 

[67] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

While  the  Constitution  apparently  only  deals  with 
the  practical  and  essential  details  of  government,  yet 
underlying  these  simply  but  wonderfully  phrased  dele- 
gations of  power  is  a  broad  and  accurate  political 
philosophy,  which  constitutes  the  true  doctrine  of 
America,  and,  indeed,  the  "whole  law  and  the  prophets" 
of  free  government.  Its  principles  are  of  eternal  verity. 
They  are  founded  upon  the  fundamental  rights  of  man. 
They  are  not  of  the  day  or  of  temporary  circumstances. 
If  they  are  destroyed  in  principle,  then  the  spirit  of  our 
government  is  gone,  even  if  the  form  survive. 

The  essential  principles  of  the  Constitution,  which 
form  its  political  philosophy  and  which  at  least  at  one 
time  constituted  the  American  doctrine  of  free  govern- 
ment, may  be  summarized  as  follows : 

The  first  is  representative  government.  In  the  dis- 
cussions before  the  Constitutional  Convention,  all 
speakers  made  a  distinction  between  that  which  they 
called  "democracy'*  and  that  which  they  called  "repub- 
licanism." By  the  former  they  meant  direct  legislative 
action  by  the  people,  or,  as  we  would  say,  a  pure  de- 
mocracy. By  "republicanism,"  they  meant  representa- 
tive government. 

However  much  the  Fathers  disagreed  upon  other 
questions,  they  were  substantially  of  one  accord  in  the 
opinion  that  wise,  direct  legislative  action  was  im- 
possible without  conference  and  that,  in  a  common- 
wealth of  many  scattered  communities,  such  a  confer- 
ence was  impracticable,  especially  in  cities,  where  the 
size  of  the  population  made  a  town  meeting  impos- 
sible. 

Even  in  New  England,  the  home  of  the  town  meet- 
[68] 


THE  OLD  FREEDOM 

ing,  it  was  provided  as  early  as  1635  that  wherever  a 
community  had  more  than  five  thousand  inhabitants 
legislation  should  be  committed  to  representatives,  to 
whom  they  gave  the  title  "Selectmen."  The  fathers 
had  in  mind  the  weakness  of  former  republics,  such 
as  those  of  Greece  and  Italy,  where  the  peoples  attempt- 
ed themselves  to  enact  laws  in  tumultuous  assemblies 
with  only  one  result — disunion,  civil  strife  and  final 
anarchy. 

The  second  principle  of  the  Constitution  was  our 
dual  form  of  government.  The  thirteen  colonies  were 
most  reluctant  to  surrender  even  a  portion  of  their 
sovereignty  to  the  Federal  Government.  They  were 
widely  scattered  communities  and  varied  greatly  in 
racial  origin  and  local  habits  and  customs.  They  were 
tenacious  of  the  great  principle  of  home  rule,  and,  even 
when  our  country  did  not  extend  beyond  the  Alle- 
ghenies,  there  was,  on  the  part  of  the  local  communi- 
ties a  deep-rooted  objection  to  being  governed  by  a 
central  power.  Only  the  immense  influence  of  Wash- 
ington triumphed  over  this  feeling  of  local  independ- 
ence, and  success  could  only  be  secured  by  confining  the 
Federal  Constitution  to  those  matters  of  general  con- 
cern which  required  of  necessity  a  common  rule  and 
which  each  state  was  incompetent  to  determine  for  it- 
self. For  this  reason  the  Tenth  Amendment,  without 
which  the  Constitution  would  not  have  been  ratified, 
was  formulated,  providing  that  all  rights  not  expressly 
delegated  to  the  Federal  Government  should  be  re- 
served forever  to  the  States  and  the  people  thereof. 

The  third  principle  was  the  guaranty  of  individual 
liberty  through  Constitutional  limitations.  This  marked 

[69] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

the  great  contribution  of  America  to  the  science  of 
government.  In  all  previous  government  building,  the 
state  was  regarded  as  a  sovereign,  which  would  grant 
to  individuals  or  classes,  out  of  its  plenary  power, 
certain  privileges  or  exemptions,  which  were  called 
"liberties."  Thus  the  liberties  which  the  barons  wrung 
from  King  John  at  Runnymede  were  virtually  exemp- 
tions from  the  power  of  government.  Our  fathers  did 
not  believe  in  the  sovereignty  of  the  state  in  the  sense 
of  absolute  power,  nor  did  they  believe  in  the  sover- 
eignty of  the  people  in  that  sense.  The  word  "sover- 
eignty" will  not  be  found  in  the  Constitution  or  the 
Declaration  of  Independence.  They  believed  that  each 
individual,  as  a  responsible  moral  being,  had  certain 
"inalienable  rights"  which  neither  the  state  nor  the 
people  could  rightfully  take  from  him. 

This  conception  of  individualism  was  wholly  new 
and  is  the  distinguishing  characteristic  of  American 
constitutionalism.  As  to  such  reserved  rights,  guaran- 
teed by  Constitutional  limitations,  and  largely  by  the 
first  ten  Amendments  to  the  Constitution,  a  man,  by 
virtue  of  his  inherent  and  God-given  dignity  as  a 
human  soul,  has  rights,  such  as  freedom  of  the  press, 
liberty  of  speech,  property  rights,  and  religious  free- 
dom, which  even  one  hundred  millions  of  people  can 
not  rightfully  take  from  him.  The  Fathers  did  not 
believe  that  the  oil  of  anointing  that  was  supposed  to 
sanctify  the  monarch  and  give  him  infallibility  had 
fallen  upon  the  multitudinous  tongue  of  the  people  to 
give  it  either  infallibility  or  omnipotence.  They  be- 
lieved in  individualism.  They  were  animated  by  a 
sleepless  jealousy  of  governmental  power.  They  be- 

[70] 


THE  OLD  FREEDOM 

lieved  that  the  greater  such  power,  the  greater  the 
danger  of  its  abuse.  They  believed  that  that  people 
was  best  governed  which  was  least  governed.  They 
felt  that  the  individual  could  generally  best  work  out 
his  own  salvation,  and  that  his  constant  prayer  to  Gov- 
ernment was  that  of  Diogenes:  "Keep  out  of  my  sun- 
light." 

The  worth  and  dignity  of  the  human  soul,  the  free 
competition  of  man  and  man,  the  nobility  of  labor, 
the  right  to  work,  free  from  the  tyranny  of  state  or 
class,  this  was  their  Gospel.  Socialism  was  to  them 
abhorrent. 

This  theory  of  government  gave  a  new  dignity  to 
manhood.  It  exalted  the  human  soul  as  no  previous 
governmental  institution  had  ever  done.  It  said  to  the 
State :  "There  is  a  limit  to  your  power.  Thus  far  and 
no  further,  and  here  shall  thy  proud  waves  be  stayed." 

Closely  allied  to  this  doctrine  of  limited  govern- 
mental powers,  even  by  a  majority,  is  the  fourth  prin- 
ciple of  an  independent  judiciary.  It  is  the  balance 
wheel  of  the  Constitution,  and  to  function  it  must  be 
beyond  the  possibility  of  attack  and  destruction.  Our 
country  was  founded  upon  the  rock  of  property  rights 
and  the  sanctity  of  contracts.  Both  the  nation  and  the 
several  States  are  forbidden  to  take  away  life,  liberty 
or  property  "without  due  process  of  law."  The  guar- 
antee is  as  old  as  Magna  Charta;  for  "due  process 
of  law"  is  but  a  paraphrase  of  "the  law  of  the  land," 
without  which  no  freeman  could  be  deprived  of  his 
liberties  or  possessions. 

"Due  process  of  law"  means  that  there  are  certain 
fundamental  principles  of  liberty,  not  defined  or  even 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

enumerated  in  the  Constitution,  but  having  their  sanc- 
tion in  the  free  and  enlightened  conscience  of  just  men, 
and  that  no  man  can  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty  or 
property,  or  of  his  right  to  the  pursuit  of  happiness, 
except  in  conformity  with  these  fundamental  decencies 
of  liberty.  It  is  the  contradiction  of  Bolshevism,  which 
means  the  unrestrained  rule  of  a  class.  To  protect 
these  even  against  the  will  of  a  majority,  however 
large,  the  Judiciary  was  given  unprecedented  powers. 
It  threw  about  the  individual  the  solemn  circle  of  the 
law. 

The  fifth  fundamental  principle  was  a  system  of 
governmental  checks  and  balances,  whereby  it  was 
sought  to  divide  official  authority  and  responsibility  in 
order  that  power  should  never  be  concentrated  in  one 
man,  or  even  in  one  branch  of  the  Government.  The 
founders  of  the  Republic  were  not  enamored  of 
power.  They  had  just  thrown  off  the  tyranny  of  a 
king.  They  were  as  little  disposed  to  accept  the  tyranny 
of  a  Parliament  or  Congress.  As  they  viewed  human 
history,  the  worst  evils  of  government  were  due  to 
excessive  concentration  of  power,  which  like  Othello's 
jealousy  "makes  the  meat  it  feeds  on." 

The  sixth  fundamental  principle  was  a  concurrent 
power  of  the  Senate  and  the  Executive  over  the  for- 
eign relations  of  the  Government. 

Nothing,  excepting  the  principle  of  home  rule,  was 
of  deeper  concern  to  the  framers  of  the  Constitution, 
and  in  nothing  did  they  make  a  more  radical  departure 
from  all  existing  forms  of  government.  When  the 
Constitution  was  framed,  nearly  every  government  of 
Europe  was  a  monarchy,  and  it  was  the  accepted  prin- 


THE  OLD  FREEDOM 

ciple  that  whatever  control  parliaments  or  other  legis- 
lative bodies  had  over  domestic  concerns  the  right  to 
determine  the  foreign  relations  of  the  government, 
including  the  issues  of  peace  and  war,  was  the  exclu- 
sive prerogative  of  the  sovereign.  In  England,  the 
freest  of  all  governments  at  that  time,  the  only  check 
on  the  power  of  the  King  to  select  the  diplomatic  rep- 
resentatives of  the  government,  to  make  treaties,  and 
generally  to  determine  the  issues  of  peace  and  war,  was 
the  power  which  the  House  of  Commons  had  over  the 
purse  of  the  nation.  If  the  King  had  the  necessary 
means  to  make  war  without  a  parliamentary  grant,  he 
was  free  to  do  so.  But,  as  he  rarely  had  sufficient 
means,  he  was  generally  dependent  upon  Parliament 
for  the  necessary  grants.  Many  of  the  greatest  strug- 
gles for  English  liberty  concerned  the  attempt  of  the 
King  to  exact  money  without  parliamentary  grant,  in 
order  to  carry  on  wars  in  which  his  dynasty  was 
engaged. 

When  the  Constitutional  Convention  met,  it  was  at 
first  resolved  that  the  power  to  appoint  ambassadors, 
ministers,  and  consuls,  and  to  make  treaties,  should  be 
ves;  ?d  exclusively  in  the  Senate,  as  the  body  that  most 
directly  and  equally  represented  the  constituent  States. 
It  was,  however,  recognized  by  these  practical  men 
that  the  Senate  was  not  always  in  session,  and  that  it 
was  not  easy  for  a  body,  consisting  originally  of 
twenty-six  men,  to  negotiate  treaties  with  advantage, 
and  therefore  it  was  finally  resolved  that  the  President 
should  "with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate," 
appoint  ambassadors,  ministers  and  consuls,  and  make 
treaties;  but  that,  if  a  declaration  of  war  was  contem- 

[73] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

plated,  only  the  concurrence  of  both  houses  of  Congress 
could  authorize  such  a  declaration. 

The  language  of  the  Constitution  was  drawn  with 
the  greatest  precision.  It  is  a  model  of  literary  style. 
In  it,  there  is  no  tautology7,  not  even  a  wasted  word, 
and  when,  therefore,  the  Constitution  made  necessary 
the  ''advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,"  something 
more  than  a  mere  ratification  of  an  appointment  or  of 
a  treaty  was  in  contemplation.  The  word  "advice" 
clearly  meant  cooperation  with  the  Executive  in  an 
advisory  capacity  before  a  conclusion  was  reached  and 
the  nation,  to  some  extent,  morally  committed. 

It  was  the  undoubted  intention  of  the  Fathers  to 
make  the  Senate  the  final  and  principal  treaty-making 
power,  and,  as  such,  to  enable  it,  at  any  stage  of  the 
negotiations,  either  to  propose  a  treaty  to  the  Execu- 
tive, to  whom  the  task  of  negotiation  with  other  na- 
tions was  committed,  to  express  disapproval  of  treaties 
in  contemplation,  to  determine  the  suitability  of  those 
who  were  appointed  to  negotiate  a  treaty,  to  advise 
with  the  President  at  any  stage  of  the  negotiations, 
and,  finally,  to  consent  to,  or  reject,  or  to  amend,  any 
tentative  draft. 

As  America  is  now  the  first  power  of  the  world 
and  is  destined  to  play  the  most  potential  part  in  shap- 
ing its  destinies,  it  is  vitally  important  that  any  deci- 
sion which  affects  the  future  relations  of  this  govern- 
ment with  the  rest  of  the  world  should  have  the  con- 
sideration and  approVaJ,  nort:  merely  of  the  Chief 
Magistrate,  but  of  that  body  of  Congress  which,  in 
a  peculiar  way,  represents  the  sovereign  common- 
wealths of  the  Federal  Union. 

[74] 


THE  OLD  FREEDOM 

This  was  recognized  by  the  first  Presidents,  those 
who  had  sat  in  the  Constitutional  Convention  which 
framed  the  Constitution,  and  therefore  knew  best  the 
intentions  of  its  framers.  Thus,  President  Washington 
on  more  than  one  occasion  appeared  before  the  Senate 
and  asked  its  instructions  as  to  the  character  of  the 
negotiations  which  he  intended  to  initiate.  In  his  con- 
duct of  foreign  relations  he  kept  in  the  most  intimate 
touch  with  the  Senate,  in  order  to  be  sure  that  he  would 
not  exceed  their  wishes  in  what  he  was  attempting  to 
do.  Thus,  on  April  16,  1794,  he  consulted  the  Senate 
as  to  the  propriety  of  sending  John  Jay  to  England  to 
negotiate  the  so-called  "Jay  Treaty,"  and  gave  his 
reasons  and  suggested  the  policy  that  he  would  instruct 
Mr.  Jay  to  follow. 

Washington's  successor,  President  Adams,  followed 
the  same  procedure.  Jefferson,  when  he  sent  Living- 
ston and  Monroe  to  France  to  negotiate  for  the  acqui- 
sition of  Louisiana,  suggested  his  proposed  policy  and 
invited  the  Senate's  assent  or  dissent. 

Gradually,  however,  a  different  procedure  was 
adopted.  For  many  reasons  the  President  preferred  to 
initiate  the  negotiations  on  his  own  responsibility  and 
to  defer  any  formal  consultation  with  the  Senate  until 
he  was  prepared  to  submit  a  treaty  in  a  concrete  form. 
Even  in  these  cases  the  President  generally  conferred 
informally  with  Senators,  in  order  to  be  sure  that  he 
did  not  go  to  lengths  which  they  would  not  sanction. 
In  ignoring  the  Senate  in  the  initial  stages  of  negotia- 
tion, these  former  Presidents  did  so  only  in  cases  where 
they  felt  a  reasonable  certainty  that  the  Senate  would 
subsequently  ratify  their  action.  In  all  cases  of  doubt 

[75] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

the  President,  in  order  to  prevent  such  a  catastrophe 
as  has  now  happened,  either  took  the  advice  of  the 
Senate  as  a  body  before  initiating  or  concluding  nego- 
tiations, or  at  least  conferred  with  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Relations.  Thus,  as  late  as  December  I7th, 
1861,  President  Lincoln  sent  to  the  Senate  a  draft  of 
a  convention  proposed  by  the  Mexican  Government, 
not  for  ratification,  but  merely  to  ask  their  advice  and 
whether  he  should  proceed  with  the  negotiations.  A 
year  later  he  again  asked  advice  as  to  what  instructions 
he  should  give  the  American  diplomatic  representative 
in  Mexico,  and  when  the  Senate  passed  a  resolution 
that  it  regarded  the  proposed  policy  inadvisable,  Presi- 
dent Lincoln,  in  a  message  dated  June  23rd,  1862,  said : 
"The  action  of  the  Senate  is,  of  course,  conclusive 
against  acceptance  of  the  treaties  on  my  part." 

In  1871  President  Grant  transmitted  a  dispatch 
from  the  American  Minister  to  the  Hawaiian  Islands 
and  asked  the  advice  of  the  Senate  as  to  the  policy  to 
be  pursued.  Again,  in  1872,  the  same  President  asked 
the  advice  of  the  Senate  with  respect  to  the  differences 
which  had  arisen  with  England  under  the  Treaty  of 
Washington. 

In  1884  President  Arthur  asked  the  advice  of  the 
Senate  as  to  how  he  should  proceed  with  negotiations 
with  the  King  of  Hawaii  for  the  extension  of  the  exist- 
ing reciprocity  treaty. 

In  1888  the  Senate  asked  President  Cleveland  to 
open  negotiations  with  China  for  the  regulation  of 
immigration. 

Without  multiplying  precedents,  which  are  numer- 
ous, it  is  enough  to  say  that  not  only  have  previous 

[76] 


THE  OLD  FREEDOM 

Presidents  kept  in  touch  with  the  Senate  in  negotia- 
tions, but  the  power  of  the  Senate  to  shape  them 
finally  has  been  demonstrated  by  the  fact  that,  in  the 
matter  of  sixty-eight  treaties  with  foreign  countries, 
the  Senate  refused  its  ratification  until  amendments 
which  they  advised  were  accepted.  The  final  power  of 
the  Senate  has  been  repeatedly  demonstrated  by  the 
complete  rejection  of  many  treaties  favored  by  the 
Executive. 

Undoubtedly  in  relatively  unimportant  negotiations, 
where  the  President  can  proceed  with  safety,  he  has 
negotiated  without  preliminary  consultation  with  the 
Senate.  But  in  all  grave  matters,  especially  where  the 
issues  of  peace  or  war  are  concerned,  every  President, 
prior  to  the  Treaty  of  Paris,  consulted,  formally  or 
informally,  with  the  Senate,  and,  as  the  latter  has 
become  a  very  large  and  cumbrous  body,  the  method 
that  has  been  followed  generally  in  recent  years  is  for 
the  President  to  discuss  matters  of  international  policy 
with  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations.  As  to  many 
questions,  especially  in  the  initial  stages,  he  m^y  con- 
sult only  with  the  members  of  that  Committee  who 
are  of  his  own  party;  but  in  all  grave  crises,  which 
rise  above  party  politics,  it  was  hitherto  the  unbroken 
custom  for  the  President  to  confer  with  the  members 
of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  without  re- 
spect to  party.  The  most  recent  illustration  of  this  was 
the  Spanish-American  War,  when  President  McKinley, 
as  the  crisis  developed,  called  into  frequent  consulta- 
tion the  entire  body  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations,  and,  when  that  war  was  ended,  the  Presi- 
dent sent,  as  Commissioners  to  Paris,  members  of  both 

[77] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

the  political  parties,  including  a  distinguished  Demo- 
cratic Senator,  who  was  not  on  domestic  questions  in 
political  sympathy  with  the  Administration. 

In  this  way  the  Constitution  has  been  so  interpreted 
and  applied  that  hitherto  party  politics  stopped  at  the 
margin  of  the  ocean,  and  America  pursued,  with  ref- 
erence to  foreign  affairs,  a  reasonably  united  policy. 

It  is  obvious  from  what  has  preceded  that  President 
Wilson,  in  his  negotiations  at  Paris,  did  not  follow  the 
wholesome  and  consistent  precedents  of  his  predeces- 
sors. He  did  not  offend  the  letter  of  the  Constitution, 
but  he  did  not  observe  its  spirit,  which  commanded 
him  to  "make,"  i.e.,  negotiate,  his  treaties  with  the 
"advice"  of  the  Senate.  He  has  the  justification  that 
he  works  best  alone  and  when  least  interfered  with  by 
divided  counsels.  Conflicts  of  opinion  confuse  him,  and 
he  has  little  of  the  judicial  faculty  of  weighing  the 
pros  and  cons  of  a  question,  and  then  deciding  upon 
which  side  the  balance  lies. 

When  President  Wilson  returned  to  America  with 
the  first  draft  of  the  Covenant  of  the  League,  the  dis- 
sent of  the  Senate — though  informally  expressed — was 
unmistakable.  Thereupon  the  Paris  Conference,  in  Mr. 
Wilson's  absence,  wisely  decided  to  make  a  Treaty  of 
Peace  first  with  the  Central  Powers,  and  then  consider, 
in  a  supplemental  treaty,  a  League  of  Nations.  On 
President  Wilson's  return  to  Paris  he  insisted  that  this 
action  should  be  reversed,  and  the  fatal  blunder  of  the 
European  Peace  Commissioners  was  that  they  yielded 
to  this  demand,  and,  to  please  Mr.  Wilson,  forced  the 
Covenant  of  the  League  back  into  the  Peace  Treaty. 
The  obvious  purpose  was  to  compel,  or  at  least  induce, 

[78] 


THE  OLD  FREEDOM 

the  Senate  to  accept  it  as  a  choice  of  evils.  While 
it  may  not  have  been  so  intended,  in  effect  this  was  a 
challenge  and  almost  an  affront  to  the  Senate  and  to 
a  majority  of  the  American  people,  who  had,  in  the 
preceding  November,  given  emphatic  expression  to 
their  unwillingness  to  make  President  Wilson  the  sole 
judge  of  the  extent  and  manner  of  America's  participa- 
tion in  the  proposed  Treaty. 

It  has  been  generally  assumed  that,  if  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States  had  ratified  the  Treaty  with  the 
so-called  "Lodge  reservations,"  the  President  had 
power  and  would  have  exercised  the  power  to  pigeon- 
hole the  treaty,  and  thus  ignore  the  judgment  of  the 
Senate  as  to  the  terms  upon  which  the  United  States 
should  enter  the  proposed  League  of  Nations.  Has 
the  President  such  right? 

It  cannot  be  gainsaid  that,  as  a  mere  juridical  ques- 
tion, the  President  has  such  right.  From  the  general 
provisions  of  the  Constitution,  an  unwritten  provision 
has  been  evolved,  which  gives  to  the  President,  except 
as  the  Senate  may  act  as  a  brake  in  the  matter  of 
appointment  and  treaty  ratification,  the  full  control 
over  the  foreign  relations  of  the  government.  This 
power,  which  I  believe  the  frame rs  of  the  Constitution 
never  intended,  is  derived  from  the  power  of  the  Presi- 
dent to  receive  foreign  diplomatic  representatives  and 
to  make  treaties. 

If  the  Senate  had  ratified  the  Peace  Treaty  with 
reservations  which  were  objectionable  to  the  President, 
his  legal  right,  under  the  present  generally  accepted 
interpretation  of  the  Constitution,  to  nullify  the  Treaty 
by  pigeon  holing  it  cannot  be  denied.  The  power  has 

[79] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

been  exercised  without  challenge  by  many  of  his  prede- 
cessors. 

A  more  serious  question  is  whether  the  President 
has  any  moral  power  thus  to  disregard  the  will  of  the 
representatives  of  the  States  which  form  the  Union  in 
a  matter  that  was  so  plainly  committed  to  their  final 
judgment.  There  is  a  clear  difference  between  legal 
or  technical  constitutional  power,  and  that  which  Grote 
once  called  "constitutional  morality."  The  President 
is  under  a  moral  obligation,  by  reason  of  the  whole 
spirit  of  the  Constitution,  to  do  things  which,  if  he 
fails  to  do,  he  could  not  be  justly  subjected  to  im- 
peachment. Such  a  moral  duty,  in  my  judgment,  rests 
upon  the  President  to  accept  the  judgment  of  the 
Senators,  when  such  judgment  is  reached  by  a  two- 
thirds  vote.  The  spirit  of  the  Constitution  imposes 
upon  the  President,  as  a  moral  duty,  the  responsibility 
of  doing  nothing  which  he  has  reason  to  believe  the 
Senate  will  reject;  but  this  is  merely  the  negative  or 
passive  part  of  his  duty.  In  my  judgment,  there  is 
upon  him  an  active  and  affirmative  moral  duty  to  defer 
to  the  wisdom  of  the  Senate  in  the  matter  of  our  for- 
eign relations.  The  Founders  of  the  Republic  believed, 
and,  as  I  think,  wisely  believed,  that  the  representatives 
of  the  sovereign  States  assembled  in  high  council  would 
have  a  wiser,  or  at  least  a  safer,  judgment  than  the 
President  as  to  what  treaties  America  should  accept. 
Sound  Constitutional  morality  requires  that,  when  two- 
thirds  of  the  Senate  differ  with  the  President  as  to  the 
form  of  a  treaty,  he  should  defer  to  their  views,  and 
certainly  this  view  has  sanction  in  the  basic  theory  of 
democracy  that  it  is  more  likely  that  one  official  is 

[so] 


THE  OLD  FREEDOM 

wrong  when  he  differs  from  two-thirds  of  the  Senate 
than  that  so  large  a  number  of  Senators  are  wrong  in 
their  view. 

I  admit  that  this  view  is  old-fashioned  and  reaction- 
ary; but,  if  America  is  to  be  involved  in  the  affairs  of 
the  world,  it  will  become  increasingly  important  that 
we  should  so  far  go  back  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
Fathers  as  to  accept  that  construction  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. The  question  of  constitutional  morality  turns,  not 
upon  that  which  the  President  has  the  strict,  legal 
power  to  do,  but  also  upon  the  question  as  to  what 
he  ought  to  do  to  carry  out  the  fundamental  purpose 
of  the  Constitution. 

It  is  this  division  of  responsibility  between  the 
Executive  and  the  Senate  that  makes  it  so  difficult,  if 
not  impossible,  for  the  United  States  to  take  any  active 
part  in  the  Executive  Council  of  the  League  of  Nations. 
Had  the  United  States  decided  thus  to  participate,  it 
could  not  have  been  an  effective  member  of  the  Execu- 
tive Council  without  a  substantial  modification  of  those 
provisions  of  the  Constitution  which  relate  to  the 
treaty-making  power.  As  long  as  the  United  States 
was  detached  from  the  European  polity,  its  cumbrous 
method  of  making  treaties  with  other  nations  was 
workable;  but  if  it  enters  into  the  European  polity 
— <as  President  Wilson  bids  us  do — and  the  United 
States  becomes  an  active  and  continuous  member  of 
the  Executive  Council  of  the  League  of  Nations,  it  is 
obvious  from  the  present  unfortunate  impasse  that 
the  other  nations  which  compose  the  Executive  Council 
could  not,  with  advantage,  deal  with  the  American 
representative  who,  unlike  his  European  colleagues^ 

[81] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

would  not  have  any  real  power  to  bind  his  country. 
The  result  would  be  a  constant  repetition  of  the  present 
dreadful  deadlock  in  civilization.  The  President  would 
necessarily  be  represented  by  his  own  appointee  in  the 
Geneva  Council.  Questions  would  arise  which  would 
require  immediate  and  definite  disposition.  The  Amer- 
ican representative,  in  such  event,  would  either  be 
obliged  to  promise  in  behalf  of  his  country  a  course  of 
action  which  it  might  subsequently  refuse  to  take,  or  he 
would  be  obliged  to  defer  the  vote  of  America  until 
such  time  as  the  judgment  of  the  Senate  could  be 
ascertained.  Such  a  condition  is  plainly  intolerable, 
and  it  is  amazing  that,  in  all  the  discussion  of  the 
League  of  Nations,  so  little  attention  has  been  paid  to 
the  fact  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
is  thus  not  adapted  to  the  effective  participation  by 
the  United  States  in  the  proposed  super-state,  as  pro- 
posed in  President  Wilson's  Covenant. 

The  present  crisis  suggests  another  interesting  ques- 
tion. In  all  countries,  there  has  always  been  a  ceaseless 
war  between  the  Executive  and  legislative  departments 
for  dominating  power.  Our  Fathers  sought  to  avert 
this  by  their  system  of  checks  and  balances.  On  the 
one  hand,  they  did  not  desire  to  make  a  king  of  the 
President,  and,  on  the  other,  they  were  equally  averse 
to  parliamentary  tyranny.  Their  own  experience  with 
both  the  Crown  and  Parliament  had  not  made  them 
partisans  of  either  branch  of  government. 

Unfortunately,  the  tides  of  popular  action  do  not 
always  run  in  the  channels  of  constitutional  theories. 
It  is  as  difficult  for  two  planets  to  continue  in  one 
orbit  without  collision,  as  it  is  for  two  branches  of 

[82] 


THE  OLD  FREEDOM 

government  who  are  theoretically  equal.  Each  is  jeal- 
ous of  its  power  and  ambitious  for  more. 

Until  recent  years,  the  predominance  of  the  legis- 
lature was  regarded  as  the  great  ideal  of  democracy. 

In  this  country,  the  opposite  tendency  has  been 
observable  for  over  fifty  years.  The  Executive,  in  the 
person  of  the  President,  appeals  more  to  the  imagina- 
tion of  men  than  a  many-headed  body  like  the  Con- 
gress. Thus,  the  attitude  of  the  popular  mind  has  been 
marked  by  an  ever-increasing  appreciation  of  the 
Presidential  office,  and  an  ever-decreasing  respect  for 
the  legislative  branch  of  the  government. 

In  the  last  fifty  years,  the  President  has  largely 
determined  the  policy  of  the  nation,  and  when  any 
difference  arises  between  the  Executive  and  the  Con- 
gress, generally  the  sympathy  of  the  people  is  with  the 
President.  He  is  regarded,  rightly  or  wrongly,  as 
more  representative  of  the  popular  will. 

If  the  experience  of  the  past  teaches  us  anything, 
it  is  that  nations  gradually  lose  their  freedom  by  the 
undue  exaltation  of  the  Executive.  When  the  Presi- 
dent's prestige  becomes  so  great  that  the  popular  mind 
will  not  brook  any  opposition  to  his  wishes  by  the 
legislative  branch,  then  America  will  be  a  republic 
only  in  name. 

Moreover,  nothing  adds  so  much  to  the  prestige  of 
the  Executive  as  the  foreign  relations  of  the  govern- 
ment. When  they  become  the  dominating  subject  of 
popular  solicitude,  then  differences  as  to  internal  poli- 
cies yield  to  the  exigencies  of  foreign  relations  and 
thus  the  office  of  President  becomes  of  overshadowing 
importance. 

[83] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

The  stupendous  part  which  America  is  invited  to 
play  on  the  stage  of  the  world  by  the  League  of 
Nations  may  possibly  compensate  for  this  possible 
change  in  the  structure  of  our  government.  I  very 
much  doubt  it.  I  fear  that  if  America  becomes  a 
dominating  element  in  the  proposed  superstate  of  the 
world,  it  will  so  enhance  the  dignity  and  power  of  the 
Presidential  office  that  the  equilibrium  of  power  be- 
tween the  Executive  and  the  Legislative  branches  of 
the  government  will  be  seriously,  if  not  fatally,  dis- 
turbed. 

These  are  the  six  fundamental  principles  of  the 
Constitution  and  constitute  the  great  contribution  of 
its  framers  to  the  ordered  progress  of  mankind.  In 
essence  they  are  unchangeable,  for  they  are  funda- 
mental verities.  Destroy  these  one  by  one,  and  the 
Constitution  will  one  day  become  a  noble  and  splendid 
ruin  like  the  Parthenon — useless  for  practical  purposes, 
and  only  an  object  of  melancholy  interest. 

Let  me  not  be  misunderstood  as  suggesting  that  the 
Constitution  is  too  rigid  to  permit  of  adaptation  to 
changed  conditions.  It  is  not  static.  It  changes  from 
generation  to  generation,  sometimes  by  formal  amend- 
ment, more  frequently  by  judicial  interpretation,  and 
sometimes  by  mere  usage.  It  contains  many  adminis- 
trative details  which  need  expansion  to  meet  the 
changed  needs  of  the  most  progressive  nation  in  the 
world.  Without  such  changes,  the  Constitution  would 
soon  be  as  an  ocean  bulkhead,  which  stands  for  a 
time,  but,  sooner  or  later,  is  destroyed  by  the  invincible 
ivaves  of  the  ocean.  The  Constitution  is  neither,  on 


THE  OLD  FREEDOM 

the  one  hand,  a  sandy  beach,  which  is  slowly  destroyed 
by  the  erosion  of  the  waves,  nor,  on  the  other  hand, 
is  it  a  Gibraltar  rock,  which  wholly  resists  the  cease- 
less washing  of  time  and  circumstance. 

Its  strength  lies  in  its  elasticity  and  adaptability  to 
slow  and  progressive  change.  One  serious  change  in 
our  constitutional  system  seems  to  merit  the  most 
serious  consideration  of  the  American  people.  Our 
fixed  tenure  of  office  has  gone  far  in  the  practical  de- 
velopment of  our  institutions  to  destroy  true  parlia- 
mentary government.  It  is  the  vulnerable  Achilles- 
heel  of  our  form  of  government.  In  other  countries 
the  Executive  cannot  survive  a  vote  of  want  of  con- 
fidence by  the  Legislature.  In  America,  the  President, 
who  is  merely  the  Executive  of  the  legislative  will, 
continues  for  his  prescribed  term,  although  he  may 
have  wholly  lost  the  confidence  of  the  representatives 
of  the  people  in  Congress.  This  leads  to  the  fatalism 
of  our  democracy,  and  the  "native  hue"  of  its  resolu- 
tion is  thus  "sicklied  o'er  with  the  pale  cast  of  thought." 
It  would  probably  be  unwise  in  a  heterogeneous  democ- 
racy as  ours  to  make  the  continued  tenure  of  the  Exec- 
utive to  depend  upon  the  confidence  of  a  majority  of 
both  houses  of  Congress,  but  it  would  destroy  the 
autocratic  spirit,  which  too  often  marks  the  Executive 
and  makes  him  a  temporary  King  in  all  but  name, 
if  it  were  provided  that  the  Executive  should  resign 
or  be  removed,  whenever  two-thirds  of  each  house 
of  Congress  declared  their  want  of  confidence  in  him 
or  his  policies.  If,  in  addition  to  this  innovation,  the 
members  of  his  Cabinet  were  given  seats  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  and  required  at  stated  intervals  to 

[85] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

reply  to  questions  as  to  their  policies  and  acts — as  is 
the  custom  in  the  House  of  Commons — then  we  would 
have  true  parliamentary  government,  and  the  will  of 
the  people  and  not  of  one  man  would  generally  prevail. 
The  two-thirds  provision  would  ensure  a  greater  & 
measure  of  popular  government  without  impairing  its 
stability. 

In  the  fundamental  principles  above  suggested, 
the  Constitution  asserted  certain  basic  verities  which 
"time  cannot  wither  nor  custom  stale."  These  are 
eternal  truths,  and  if  these  are  subverted,  the  spirit  of 
our  government  is  gone,  even  if  the  form  survive. 

Were  Franklin  again  to  revisit  the  glimpses  of  the 
moon,  would  he,  with  his  unequaled  prescience,  still 
regard  the  sun  as  a  rising  one?  Would  he,  if  he  knew 
the  developments  of  the  last  quarter  of  a  century,  and 
especially  of  the  last  eight  years,  regard  this  great 
luminary  of  the  nations  as  in  the  noontide  of  its  splen- 
dor, or  would  he  regard  it  as  slowly  disappearing 
behind  a  dark  cloud  of  Socialism — only  to  set  some  day 
in  the  flaming  West,  which  would  write  its  irrevocable 
sentence  upon  this  as  it  has  upon  so  many  strong 
governments  that  have  preceded? 

What  would  Washington  say  if,  clad  in  brown  velvet 
and  with  sword  by  his  side,  he  again  appeared  in  our 
midst?  We  can  know  his  thoughts  from  those  which 
he  expressed  in  the  Farewell  Address* — the  noblest 
political  testament  that  any  founder  of  a  state  ever 
gave  to  any  people.  Let  me  quote  the  significant  words 
which  he,  as  "an  old  and  affectionate  friend,"  ad- 
dressed, not  only  to  his  own  generation,  but  to  all  that 
were  to  follow,  and  therefore  to  this  generation : 

[86] 


THE  OLD  FREEDOM 

"It  is  of  infinite  moment  that  you  should  properly 
estimate  the  immense  value  of  your  national  union  to 
your  collective  and  individual  happiness  .  .  .  To- 
ward the  preservation  of  your  government  and  the 
permanency  of  your  present  happy  state,  it  is  requisite 
not  only  that  you  steadily  discountenance  irregular  op- 
positions to  its  acknowledged  authority,  but  also  that 
you  resist  with  care  the  spirit  of  innovation  upon  its 
principles,  however  specious  the  pretexts.  One  method 
of  assault  may  be  to  effect  in  the  forms  of  the  Con- 
'stitution  alterations  which  will  impair  the  energy  of 
the  system,,  and  thus  to  undermine  what  can  not  be 
directly  overthrown" 

Thirty-two  years  ago  it  was  the  author's  privilege 
as  a  citizen  of  Philadelphia  to  participate  in  the  Cen- 
tennial Celebration  of  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution. 

In  all  the  public  utterances  that  marked  that  cele- 
bration, there  was  undoubted  faith  that  the  Ship  of 
State  had  weathered  its  hardest  storms,  had  escaped 
the  rocks  and  shoals  which  had  wrecked  other  gov- 
ernments, and  that,  in  the  unlimited  future,  there  were 
before  it  only  smooth  seas  and  cloudless  skies. 

If  any  of  us  who  took  part  in  that  celebration  had 
then  anticipated  the  portentous  changes  of  the  next 
twenty-five  years,  and  especially  of  the  last  eight 
years,  the  note  of  exultation  would,  like  Macbeth's 
"Amen,"  have  stuck  in  our  throats.  Little  we  then 
realized  that  before  another  quarter  of  a  century 
had  passed  every  fundamental  principle  of  the  Consti- 
tution would  be  challenged  by  great  political  parties, 
and  responsible  leaders  of  thought,  and  that,  within 
that  time,  there  would  be  Americans  wrho  would  openly 
proclaim  their  belief  that  the  Constitution  was  an  anti- 

[87] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

quated  and  reactionary  document,  an  obstacle  to  the 
progress  of  the  American  people,  and  a  mistaken  imi- 
tation of  the  Newtonian  and  not  the  Darwinian  theory. 

In  measuring  the  force  of  Constitutional  changes, 
it  is  necessary  to  note  the  changes  in  the  Constitutions 
of  the  States,  as  well  as  in  that  of  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment. Together  they  form  the  real  Constitutional  sys- 
tem of  the  American  Commonwealth. 

The  representative  principle  has  been  challenged  in 
twenty-two  States  of  the  Union  by  the  initiative  and 
the  referendum. 

The  principle  of  home  rule  has  been  subverted  by  a 
steady  submergence  of  the  States,  which  has  now  made 
of  them  little  more  than  glorified  police  provinces. 
The  latest  illustration  is  the  Prohibition  Amendment, 
whereby  Congress  is  given  power  to  prescribe  the 
habits  of  the  people.  At  such  an  abuse  of  power  over 
personal  liberty,  Washington,  Franklin,  Jefferson  and 
Hamilton  would  have  stood  aghast. 

The  guaranty  of  individual  liberty  has  been  violated 
by  many  socialistic  measures,  while  property  rights  are 
destroyed  from  time  to  time  by  confiscatory  legislation. 

The  independence  of  the  judiciary  is  menaced  by 
many  provisions  for  the  recall  both  of  judges  and  of 
judicial  decisions. 

The  system  of  governmental  checks  and  balances 
has  been  disturbed  by  the  persistent  subordination,  in 
the  practical  workings  of  the  Government,  of  the  Legis- 
lative to  the  Executive ;  while  the  concurrent  power  of 
the  Senate  over  the  foreign  relations  of  the  Govern- 
ment has  been  so  weakened  that  more  than  one  respon- 
sible leader  of  thought  has  boldly  asserted  that  this 

[88] 


THE  OLD  FREEDOM 

power  is  more  nominal  than  real.  Contemporaneous 
events  happily  show  that  the  power  of  the  Senate  has 
not  yet  been  wholly  destroyed. 

The  taxing  system  has  been  perverted  to  redistribute 
property. 

The  commercial  power  of  the  Union  has  been 
utilized  to  attain  unconstitutional  results  which  were 
clearly  outside  of  the  sphere  of  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment. 

The  Fifth  and  Fourteenth  Amendments  have  largely 
broken  down  as  bulwarks  against  confiscatory  legis- 
lation. 

Under  more  than  one  administration,  the  control  of 
the  Senate  in  the  selection  of  diplomatic  representatives 
of  the  Government  has  been  nullified  by  the  appoint- 
ment of  extra-constitutional  diplomats. 

Even  the  concurrence  of  the  Senate  in  the  treaty 
obligations  of  the  country  has  been  impaired  under 
many  administrations  by  protocols,  informal  treaties, 
and  latterly  by  methods  of  treaty-making  which  make 
the  free  decision  of  the  Senate  difficult,  if  not  impos- 
sible. 

Alarming  as  are  these  tendencies,  infinitely  more 
portentous  is  the  shifting  of  power  from  the  govern- 
ment to  organized  classes — and  this  tendency  of  our 
time  is  so  grave  that  it  threatens  the  very  existence  of 
organized  society.  When  any  class  becomes  so  numer- 
ous or  powerful  that  it  can  force  its  will  upon  the 
Government,  not  through  the  ballot  box,  but  through 
its  control  over  the  necessities  of  life,  then  the  Gov- 
ernment exists  in  form  and  not  in  name,  and  such  a 
nation  has  been  effectually  Bolshevized.  Bolshevism 

[89] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

means  the  rule  of  the  majority;  but  in  its  practical 
operation,  as  now  seen  in  Petrograd,  it  is  the  rule  of  a 
class.  Of  all  oligarchies,  that  of  a  class  is  the  most 
hateful. 

On  the  eve  of  the  last  Presidential  election,  the 
organization  which  represents  the  labor  engaged  in 
transportation — as  essential  to  the  life  of  a  nation  as 
the  circulation  of  the  blood  is  to  the  life  of  an  indi- 
vidual— arrogantly  served  notice  upon  the  President 
and  Congress  that  their  wages  must  be  raised  by 
statute.  With  a  stop-watch  in  their  hands,  they  de- 
manded immediate  compliance  with  their  imperious 
demands ;  and  not  only  did  the  President  and  the  Con- 
gress weakly  yield,  but  even  the  Supreme  Court  bent 
to  the  storni  in  sustaining  as  constitutional  an  unprec- 
edented exercise  of  the  legislative  power.  "Can  such 
things  be,  and  overcome  us  as  a  summer  cloud,  with- 
out our  special  wonder?'* 

Such  attempted  subversions  of  constituted  authority 
recall  the  solemn  warning  of  George  Washington  in 
the  Farewell  Address  in  words  of  extraordinary  apt- 
ness to  present  conditions: 

"All  obstructions  to  the  execution  of  the  laws,  all 
combinations  and  associations,  under  whatever  plaus- 
ible character,  with  the  real  design  to  direct,  control, 
counteract,  or  awe  the  regular  deliberation  and  action 
of  the  constituted  authorities,  are  destructive  of  this 
fundamental  principle  and  of  fatal  tendency.  .  .  . 

"However  combinations  or  associations  of  the  above 
description  may  now  and  then  answer  popular  ends, 
they  are  likely  in  the  course  of  time  and  things  to  be- 
come potent  engines  by  which  cunning,  ambitious  and 
unprincipled  men  will  be  enabled  to  subvert  the  power 

[90] 


THE  OLD  FREEDOM 

of  the  people,  and  to  usurp  for  themselves  the  reins  of 
government,  destroying  afterwards  the  very  engines 
which  have  lifted  them  to  unjust  dominion." 

Who  can  deny  that,  in  recent  years,  our  country 
has  witnessed  such  "obstructions  to  the  execution  of 
the  laws,"  such  "combinations  and  associations"  de- 
signed "to  direct,  control,  counteract  or  awe  the  regular 
deliberation  and  action  of  the  constituted  authorities." 

Let  us  recall  the  extraordinary  prediction  made 
more  than  a  half  century  ago  by  one  of  the  most 
sagacious  students  of  history  of  his  or  any  time.  In 
a  letter  written  to  the  biographer  of  Thomas  Jefferson, 
Lord  Macaulay  ventured  the  prediction  that  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  would  prove  workable 
as  long  as  there  were  large  areas  of  undeveloped  land. 
He  added,  however,  that  when  our  country  became  one 
of  great  cities,  when  we,  too,  had  our  Birminghams, 
Manchesters  and  Liverpools,  that  then  the  real  test 
of  our  institutions  would  come.  He  added: 

"I  believe  America's  fate  is  only  deferred  by  physi- 
cal causes.  Institutions  purely  democratic  will  sooner 
or  later  destroy  liberty  or  civilization,  or  both.  In 
Europe,  where  the  population  is  dense,  the  effect  would 
be  instantaneous.  The  poor  would  plunder  the  rich, 
and  civilization  would  perish  or  prosperity  would  be 
saved  by  a  strong  military  government,  and  liberty 
would  vanish.  The  American  constitution  is  all  tail 
and  no  anchor." 

Macaulay  was  not  alone  in  this  direful  prophecy. 
One  of  the  most  profound  students  of  government  of 
the  nineteenth  century,  Herbert  Spencer,  wrote  to  an 
American  friend  the  following: 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

"I  believe  I  wished  you  God  speed  in  your  enter- 
prise, but  I  believe  your  enterprise  is  futile.  In  the 
United  States,  as  here  and  elsewhere,  the  movement 
toward  dissolution  of  existing  social  form  and  re- 
organization on  a  socialistic  basis  I  believe  to  be  ir- 
resistible. We  have  bad  times  before  us,  and  you 
have  still  more  dreadful  times  before  you — civil  war, 
immense  bloodshed  and  eventually  military  despotism 
o,f  the  severest  type." 

I  cannot  share  Macaulay's  view  that  our  Constitu- 
tion is  "all  sail  and  no  anchor";  for,  hitherto,  it  has 
proved  a  very  effective  anchor ;  but  it  is  sadly  true  that 
the  anchor  is  dragging,  and  the  Ship  of  State  is  slowly 
swinging  away  from  its  ancient  moorings.  Certainly 
the  danger  was  never  greater  than  in  this  hour,  when 
in  every  country  there  is  a  revolt  against  accepted 
principles  of  government.  Indeed,  the  future  historian 
may  say  that  the  first  quarter  of  the  twentieth  century 
was  marked  by  a  revolt  against  the  past  in  all  depart- 
ments of  human  life.  One  can  see  this  tendency  in 
literature,  art,  music,  sociology  and  political  govern- 
ment. Everywhere  there  is  a  craze  for  innovation; 
everywhere  hostility  to  that  which  has  the  sanction  of 
the  past. 

This  question  is  of  vital  importance;  for  there  is 
no  greater  error  than  to  suppose  that  the  Constitution 
Has  some  inherent  vitality  to  ensure  its  perpetuity. 
The  breath  of  its  life  is  public  opinion,  and  when  that 
public  opinion  ceases  to  support  any  or  all  of  its  funda- 
mental principles,  they  will  perish.  Its  continued  vital- 
ity must  depend  upon  the  continued  and  intelligent 
acceptance  of  its  political  philosophy  by  the  people, 

[92] 


THE  OLD  FREEDOM 

Human  institutions  gather  no  strength  from  pieces 
of  parchment  or  red  seals.  In  a  democracy,  the  living 
soul  of  any  human  institution  must  be  the  belief  of  the 
people  in  its  wisdom  and  justice. 

It  is  true  of  all  human  institutions,  ecclesiastical 
or  political,  that  the  form  may  often  survive  the  sub- 
stance of  the  faith,  and  while  the  Government,  which 
the  Constitution  brought  into  being,  might  for  a  time 
survive  the  destruction  of  its  vital  spirit,  even  as  a 
dead  oak  stands  for  a  while  after  the  sap  has  failed,, 
yet  if  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Constitution 
cease  to  receive  popular  support,  the  whole  edifice  will 
slowly  crumble. 

This  nation  has  spent  its  treasure  like  water,  and, 
what  is  infinitely  more,  the  blood  of  its  gallant  youth, 
to  make  "the  world  safe  for  democracy."  The  task 
is  accomplished;  but,  in  the  mighty  reaction  from  the 
supreme  exertions  of  the  war,  it  is  now  apparent  to 
thoughtful  men  that  a  new  problem  confronts  man- 
kind— and  that  is}  to  make  democracy  safe  for  the 
world. 

In  this  period  of  popular  fermentation,  the  end  of 
which  no  man  can  predict,  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  with  its  fine  equilibrium  between  effi- 
cient power  and  individual  liberty,  still  remains  the 
best  hope  of  the  world.  If  it  should  perish,  the  cause 
of  true  democracy  would  receive  a  fatal  wound  and 
the  best  hopes  of  mankind  would  be  irreparably  dis- 
appointed. 

Can  any  thoughtful  man  assert  that  the  edifice  of 
the  Union  still  remains  in  all  its  pristine  beauty  and 
vigor?  Is  it  not  as  the  Cathedral  of  Rheims,  its  great 

[93] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

walls  and  pillars  still  remaining  upon  enduring  founda- 
tions of  indestructible  granite,  but  its  great  rose  win- 
dows broken  into  fragments,  and  its  high  altar  thrown 
down.  The  rose  windows  of  the  Union  are  the  great 
traditions  through  which  a  great  and  noble  past  suf- 
fuses itself  into  the  living  present.  The  high  altar  of 
the  Union  is  the  Constitution  itself.  If  it  were  de- 
stroyed, the  splendor  of  the  Union  would  perish  with 
it. 

Such  was  the  Old  Freedom. 


[94] 


CHAPTER  III 

"IT   MIGHT  HAVE  BEEN*' 

Talkers  are  no  good  doers.     Be  assured 
We  go  to  use  our  hands  and  not  our  tongues. 

SHAKESPEARE. 

PLACE:  Premier's  room,  Quai  d'Orsay. 
TIME:  January  15,  1919.  SCENE:  Paris. 

As  the  curtain  rises,  CLEMENCEAU,  LLOYD  GEORGE, 

BALFOUR,  PICHON  and  ORLANDO  are  seated 

at  Council  table. 

ORLANDO  [Looking  at  the  clock].  Our  illustrious 
American  colleague  is  late. 

CLEMENCEAU  [Dryly'}.  He  generally  is.  In  that 
policy,  no  one  will  question  his  consistency. 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  "Better  late  than  never."  His 
tardy  arrival  gives  us  the  opportunity  to  discuss  be- 
tween ourselves  the  new  complication  of  the  active 
participation  of  an  American  President  in  European 
conferences.  It  may  destroy  the  equilibrium  of  the 
European  polity.  This  Messianic  diplomacy,  with  its 
flotilla  of  ships  and  a  thousand  experts,  journalists, 
photographers,  and  cinema  operators  may  have  rejected 
Machiavelli,  but  it  is  somewhat  reminiscent  of  Barnum. 

CLEMENCEAU.  We  need  not  quarrel  with  the 
methods  of  the  new  diplomacy  if  we  can  secure  quick 
results.  The  vital  question  is  one  of  time.  A  fear 
grips  me  that  the  work  of  the  sword  may  be  lost  in 

[95] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

the  wordy  wrangles  of  diplomats,  old  and  new.  I 
sometimes  wonder  whether  we  could  not  wisely  com- 
mit the  establishment  of  peace  to  Marechal  Foch,  as 
a  Committee  of  One,  with  power.  We  could  then  dis- 
cuss at  our  leisure  the  philosophy  of  government  and 
plan  a  new  charter  for  the  world.  For  the  present, 
our  dead  demand  of  us  concrete  results,  not  illusory 
abstractions.  Above  all,  Russia  is  the  crux  of  the 
situation.  The  time  to  crush  Bolshevism  is  now.  A 
year  hence  it  will  be  too  late  and  we  may  yet  see 
Lenine  and  Trotzky  dictating  in  Warsaw  their  terms 
of  peace  to  Western  Civilization.  If  so,  it  will  be  the 
"twilight  of  the  Gods"  for  Western  Europe,  yes,  even 
for  America.  Delay  is  fatal. 

ORLANDO.  Peace  cannot  come  too  soon  for  Italy. 
Our  distinguished  visitor's  triumphal  tour  through  my 
country  has  not  been  attended  with  the  best  results  to 
the  stability  of  our  Government.  He  has  appealed  to 
the  masses  over  our  heads  and  already  we  hear  the 
distant  thunder  of  a  coming  storm.  A  Don  Quixote 
may  smash  not  only  windmills  but  a  democratic  civil- 
ization. 

CLEMENCEAU.  Too  much  importance  need  not  be 
attached  to  these  popular  ovations.  "The  shallows 
murmur;  but  the  deep  is  dumb/'  We  are  apt  to  ex- 
aggerate the  importance  of  popular  demonstrations. 
There  is  a  contagious,  but  unreasoning,  character  to 
such  manifestations.  The  intensified  enthusiasm  of 
the  mob,  whether  for  good  or  evil,  is  but  a  survival  of 
the  herd  instinct  which  we  share  with  the  lower  forms 
of  animal  life.  I  have  little  doubt  that  the  same  crowd 
that  welcomed  the  Saviour  of  Mankind  on  His  entry 

[96] 


"IT  MIGHT  HAVE  BEEN" 

into  Jerusalem  with  glad  hosannahs  were  in  part  those 
who,  five  days  later,  vociferously  shrieked:  "Crucify 
Him!  Release  unto  us  Barabbas." 

BALFOUR.  Yes,  our  English  Shakespeare  has 
shown  this  in  his  masterly  forum  scene  in  Julius 
Casar,  where  the  same  crowd  that  applauded  the  cold 
patriotism  of  Brutus,  a  little  later,  lashed  to  a  frenzy 
by  Mark  Antony's  fervid  speeches,  picked  up  brands, 
not  merely  to  destroy  Brutus,  but  to  set  Rome  on  fire. 
How  often,  in  the  history  of  the  world,  have  mobs 
acted  with  less  reason  than  a  pack  of  wolves?  And 
yet  our  American  friend  is  not  alone  in  enjoying  such 
precarious  favor. 

CLEMENCEAU.  His  nation's  history  could  teach 
him  its  futility.  My  countryman,  Genet,  went  to 
America,  to  gain  support  for  France,  and  at  first  re- 
ceived the  fervid  plaudits  of  great  assemblies,  until 
it  seemed  as  though  he  could  push  Washington  himself 
from  his  throne  of  popular  affection.  One  word  from 
Washington,  and  the  bubble  burst. 

Lafayette,  on  his  return  to  America,  had  a  reception 
of  amazing  enthusiasm,  but  Andrew  Jackson  was  not 
less  popular  when  only  a  few  years  later  he  threatened 
France  with  war  because  our  Chamber  of  Deputies 
refused  to  pass  an  appropriation  bill. 

Later,  Kossuth  felt  that  all  America  was  aflame  with 
enthusiasm  for  Hungary,  to  find  that  it  was  only  grati- 
fying its  desire  to  see  in  the  flesh  a  distinguished  Eu- 
ropean statesman. 

The  Prussian  Prince  Henry  went  to  America  and 
was  greeted  with  popular  demonstrations  from  the 
Atlantic  to  the  Pacific.  Our  enemies  were  completely 

[97] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

deceived  by  his  reception  in  America.  At  that  time 
my  Government  was  much  concerned  at  the  extraordi- 
nary receptions  given  to  the  Prussian  Prince  and 
feared  that  it  marked  a  pro-German  attitude  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States.  Whom  the  masses  applaud 
one  day,  they  stone  the  next. 

ORLANDO.  All  this  is  true,  but  the  present  danger 
remains.  In  Italy  the  demonstrations  in  Mr.  Wilson's 
honor  may  shake  the  foundations  of  our  Government. 
The  times  are  abnormal  and  the  passions  and  suffer- 
ings of  the  war  have  inflamed  the  minds  of  men  to 
fever  heat.  Our  great  cities  are  so  many  powder 
magazines,  to  which  the  match  cannot  be  safely  ap- 
plied. I  confess  that  I  would  feel  safer  if  the  Ameri- 
can President,  who  is  a  master  of  phrases  and  appar- 
ently an  emotional  idealist,  had  not  come  to  Europe 
at  this  very  critical  time. 

CLEMENCEAU.  On  the  contrary,  his  coming  is  the 
most  fortunate  of  occurrences  to  us. 

ORLANDO.  I  fear  I  do  not  fully  understand  your 
Excellency's  meaning. 

CLEMENCEAU.  Had  Mr.  Wilson  remained  in 
Washington  he  would  have  been  the  moral  dictator  of 
the  world.  He  would  have  been  seated  as  Caesar  in 
the  Flavian  amphitheater.  In  Paris  he  is  in  the  arena 
and  cannot  escape  the  dust  of  conflict. 

The  President  is  certainly  a  remarkable  man,  a  cross 
between  Don  Quixote  and  Mahomet.  No  such  figure 
has  appeared  in  European  history  since  the  Tsar  of 
Russia  appeared  at  the  Peace  Conference  in  1815.  Had 
he  remained  in  Washington  he  would  have  had  all  the 
advantages  of  an  exceptional  position.  We  should 

[98] 


"IT  MIGHT  HAVE  BEEN" 

have  been  compelled  to  deal  with  his  fidus  Achates, 
Colonel  House,  who  would  not  admit  that  two  and  two 
make  four  without  an  Imperial  rescript.  When  the 
Texas  Talleyrand  had  secured  from  us  the  maxi- 
mum of  benefits  for  the  minimum  of  concessions,  he 
would  have  pleaded  the  necessity  of  referring  the  final 
decision  to  Washington.  Long  delay  would  have  re- 
sulted, during  which  President  Wilson,  through  his 
control  over  the  Press  and  the  channels  of  communica- 
tion, and  his  unrivaled  power  of  suave  but  obscure 
statement,  could  prejudge  the  public  opinion  of  the 
world.  Inaccessible  to  any  personal  contact,  he  would 
at  the  psychological  moment  have  descended  from  the 
cloudy  summit  of  his  Mount  Sinai  and  delivered  to  us 
the  tables  of  the  law,  with  this  unhappy  difference, 
that  le  bon  Dieu  was  content  with  Ten  Commandments, 
whereas  our  Moses  has  already  bewildered  us  with 
Fourteen,  and  God  only  knows  how  many  more  we 
may  receive  before  we  complete  our  labors. 

In  coming  to  Paris  he  has  lost  all  these  advantages 
of  position.  He  must  meet  us  face  to  face  and  give 
fair  answer  to  our  views  and  demands.  [Closes  his 
eyes  and  looks  meditatively  at  the  ceiling,  as  he  adds 
in  an  undertone]  They  say  he  comes  to  match  wits 
with  us.  I  am  old  and  my  political  race  is  nearly  run, 
but  my  hand  has  not  altogether  lost  its  cunning.  I 
rejoice  that  we  see  him  in  the  arena  and  not  in  Caesar's 
judgment  seat.  European  diplomacy  may  be  old,  but 
it  is  not  yet  for  America's  "thumbs"  to  pronounce  its 
fate. 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  I  agree  that  in  coming  to  Paris 
Mr.  Wilson  has  staked  his  all  upon  the  success  of  his 

[99] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

venture.  In  this  lies  his  weakness.  He  dare  not  fail, 
therefore  he  must  concede.  Before  sailing  from  New 
York  he  announced  that  he  went  to  fight  for  "the  free- 
dom of  the  seas"  and  the  League  of  Nations.  When 
ycmr  Excellency's  reception  of  the  latter  project  disap- 
pointed him,  he  came  to  England  to  seek  my  aid,  and, 
to  test  the  strength  of  his  purpose,  it  was  suggested  that 
England  could  more  readily  accept  the  League  if  the 
issue  of  the  freedom  of  the  seas  were  eliminated  from 
the  deliberations  of  the  Peace  Conference.  For  a 
short  time  he  remained  silent,  and  then  surprised  me 
by  bursting  into  a  hearty  laugh.  He  said  that  the  joke 
was  on  him,  and  that  it  had  never  previously  occurred 
to  him  that  when  the  League  of  Nations  was  in  opera- 
tion there  would  no  longer  be  any  neutrals;  and  thus 
the  question  of  the  freedom  of  the  seas  was  academic. 
While  I  could  not  share  his  enthusiasm  in  the  prospect 
that  every  little  war  between  nations  would  automati- 
cally become  a  world  war,  yet  I  gladly  accepted  his 
happy  solution  of  a  vexed  question  which  vitally  con- 
cerned my  people.  Paul's  conversion  on  the  way  to 
Damascus  was  not  more  sudden  or  miraculous  than 
his  abandonment  of  his  "freedom  of  the  seas." 

CLEMENCEAU.  I  congratulate  England  on  your  suc- 
cess in  the  first  encounter  with  our  American  Hercules, 
but  what  of  France?  We  prefer  the  balance  of  power 
and  the  tested  offensive  and  defensive  alliance  which 
won  this  war.  I  would  as  soon  defend  Paris  with  a 
rainbow  as  France  with  a  League  of  Nations.  A  night- 
mare fills  me  with  a  haunting  dread  that  if  we  follow 
this  ignis  fatuus,  the  real  victors  of 'the  war  may  yet 
be  Trotzky  and  Lenine.  Think  of  the  humiliation  if, 

[100] 


"IT  MIGHT  HAVE  BEEN" 

after  the  loss  of  millions  oi.lhnes^the  conquerors  of 
the  Marne,  the  Yser  and  the  Meuse  must  bend  their 
knees  to  a  Lenine  or  Trotzky  and  make  terms  with 
them.  To  that  Canossa  I  would  not  go  with  a  Bol- 
shevist Pope  to  keep  me  waiting  in  the  snow  of  the 
outer  courtyard  of  European  civilization.  When  that 
day  comes,  as  it  may  if  we  trust  a  League  of  Nations, 
what  will  that  Debating  Society  do  to  avert  our  peril  ? 
We  should  make  peace  with  Germany  now  on  our 
own  terms  with  utmost  speed  and  then  crush  Bol- 
shevism before  it  is  too  late. 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  I  promised  to  support  him  in  a 
League  of  Nations.  The  remarkable  fact  that  he  had 
no  concrete  plan  made  my  acceptance  less  difficult.  I 
have  noted  in  him  an  invincible  repugnance  to  the  con- 
crete. In  applying  his  lofty  principles  to  the  realities 
he  is  as  luminous  as  a  London  fog.  Like  Micawber,  he 
regards  a  debt  as  liquidated  when  he  gives  his  promis- 
sory note.  The  method  of  payment  is  irrelevant  and 
annoying.  In  this  is  our  salvation.  Let  him  have  the 
visions  if  we  can  secure  the  desired  provisions.  We 
can  give  him  a  League  in  name,  but  have  a  strong 
alliance  in  fact,  which  will  make  America  the  under- 
writer of  the  new  map  of  Europe.  Can  we  not  vest 
nominal  power  in  all  the  members  of  the  League,  but 
reserve  to  a  few  nations  the  real  power,  of  which  our 
five  nations  will  be  a  perpetual  majority? 

ORLANDO.  But  will  not  Mr.  Wilson  distinguish  be- 
tween the  substance  and  the  shadow  ?  Can  we  assume 
that  he  will  accept  this  plan,  which  conflicts  with  his 
explicit  statement  at  Manchester  a  few  days  ago  that 
the  League  must  be  a  league  of  all  nations  and  that 

[101] 


THE  PASSING  OP  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

within  it  there  can* be  no  special  grouping  of  powers? 

CLEMENCEAU.  He  will  accept  it,  for  a  reason  that 
we  have  not  yet  discussed.  We  have  all  followed  his 
utterances  in  this  war  with  interest,  and  I  think  we 
can  diagnose  his  peculiar  temperament.  To  Mr.  Wil- 
son a  successful  pose  is  more  than  position.  He  seeks 
prestige  rather  than  power.  Give  him  all  he  asks  in 
form,  and  he  will  not  particularly  care  whether  he  gets 
it  in  substance.  We  will,  therefore,  give  him  the  lime- 
light and  the  Press  notices,  and  content  ourselves  with 
an  equitable  division  of  the  box-office  receipts. 

BALFOUR.  A  more  difficult  problem  remains :  Will 
the  American  Senate  also  fail  to  distinguish  between 
form  and  substance,  between  reality  and  shadow? 

CLEMENCEAU.  That  is  the  crux  of  the  problem.  I 
have  some  familiarity  with  the  American  Constitution. 
At  one  time  I  had  some  thought  of  becoming  a  citizen 
of  that  great  country.  Our  friend  the  President,  how- 
ever, is  not  so  fortunate  as  we,  who  have  practically 
plenary  authority  over  foreign  relations.  He  cannot 
bind  his  country,  legally  or  morally,  unless  two-thirds 
of  the  Senators  present  concur.  Besides,  Americans 
have,  as  a  habit  of  mind,  a  peculiar  aversion  to  one- 
man  power.  They  denied  it  even  to  their  illustrious 
founder.  How,  then,  are  we  to  deal  with  Mr.  Wilson? 
Two  months  have  passed  since  the  Armistice  was  de- 
clared, and  in  that  time  the  situation  has  daily  grown 
more  menacing  and  increasingly  difficult.  The  eclipse 
of  Bolshevism  is  slowly  passing  over  Europe.  Delay 
is  fatal;  the  times  are  critical  beyond  precedent.  Can 
we,  then,  safely  negotiate  a  treaty  with  the  American 
President  which,  six  months  or  a  year  hence,  the 

[102] 


"IT  MIGHT  HAVE  BEEN" 

Senate  of  the  United  States  may  refuse  to  ratify? 
Ought  we  not  ask  him,  as  a  matter  of  common  pru- 
dence, how  far  he  can  guarantee  such  ratification? 
Otherwise,  a  year  from  now,  all  of  Europe  may  be  on 
the  verge  of  revolution  and  the  fruits  of  the  war  hope- 
lessly sacrificed ! 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  I  appreciate  all  you  say,  but  with- 
out adverting  to  the  peculiar  personality  of  our  dis- 
tinguished visitor,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  know  how  we  can 
inquire  into  his  credentials  without  giving  him  mortal 
offense,  and,  as  you  know,  he  comes  not  merely  as 
President,  but  as  the  dispenser  of  food  and  credit — a 
combination,  if  I  may  be  jocose,  of  philanthropist  and, 
incidentally,  banker.  Are  we  in  a  position  to  inquire 
by  what  authority  he  speaks  ? 

CLEMENCEAU.  Are  we  in  a  position  not  to  ask 
him?  President  Wilson  is  not  America.  Any  stu- 
dent of  its  institutions  knows  that  fact.  America  will 
tolerate  a  dictator  in  times  of  war,  but  never  in  times 
of  peace.  Of  that  we  already  have  evidence;  for,  last 
October,  the  President  appealed  to  his  people  to  make 
him,  as  he  said,  their  "unembarrassed  spokesman"  by  a 
vote  of  confidence,  and  he  boldly  said  that,  unless  they 
did  so,  he  and  we  could  only  regard  it  as  a  "repudia- 
tion" of  his  leadership.  An  election  followed,  and 
the  American  people  by  over  a  million  votes  did  repu- 
diate our  august  friend's  claims  to  be  an  ambassador 
plenipotentiary  of  the  American  people.  If  we  can- 
not safely  ignore  President  Wilson's  limited  powers, 
can  we  with  greater  safety  ignore  the  significant  warn- 
ing of  the  recent  American  elections  ?  It  seems  to  me 
that  the  American  people  have  spoken  with  no  uncer* 

[103] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

tain  voice.  Mr.  Wilson  will  sooner  or  later  pass  from 
the  scene  of  action  but  the  American  people  will  re- 
main. They  will  be,  if  they  are  not  now,  the  greatest 
force  in  civilization.  Can  we  safely  ignore  them? 

ORLANDO.  My  advice  from  our  Embassy  in  Wash- 
ington is  that  his  coming  to  Europe  has  been  in  the 
teeth  of  almost  universal  opposition.  Apparently  the 
American  people  did  not  wish  him  to  come. 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  Nor  can  we  ignore  the  fact  that 
the  American  Senate  has  now  a  majority  in  opposition 
to  the  President's  administration,  and  that  the  leader 
of  the  majority,  less  than  a  month  ago,  criticized  five 
of  the  sacred  Fourteen  Points  and  specifically  called 
our  attention  to  the  fact  that  we  must  reckon  with  the 
majority  of  the  Senate.  I  confess  that  all  this  is  a 
mystery  to  me;  for  when  I  appealed  to  my  electorate, 
if  a  majority  had  been  returned  to  Parliament  hostile 
to  my  administration,  I  should  have  resigned.  An  im- 
possible alternative  confronts  us.  To  please  Mr.  Wil- 
son is  to  ignore  the  American  people,  who  have  so  re- 
cently and  emphatically  spoken.  To  ignore  Mr.  Wil- 
son is  to  close  the  only  possible  approach  to  an  accord 
with  America.  What  can  we  do? 

ORLANDO.  Italy  is  in  desperate  need  of  coal,  oil, 
cotton,  and  copper.  Where  are  we  to  get  them  except 
from  America,  and  how  can  we  get  them  except  with 
President  Wilson's  goodwill? 

CLEMENCEAU.  What  can  we  gain,  what  have  we 
gained,  by  always  yielding  to  President  Wilson  ?  Had 
we  not  conceded  a  modification  of  the  blockade  to 
meet  his  imperious  demands,  the  war  would  have 
ended  in  1916.  These  fatal  concessions  enabled  Ger- 

[104] 


"IT  MIGHT  HAVE  BEEN" 

many  to  prolong  the  war  by  the  supplies  which  she  re- 
ceived from  America  through  the  Scandinavian  coun- 
tries. What  is  past  is  past.  Let  me  again  say  in- 
sistently and  prophetically  that  I  am  more  concerned 
about  the  present  situation  in  Russia,  which  to  me  is  the 
crux  of  the  peace  problem.  Unless  we  can  crush  Bol- 
shevism the  war  may  be  lost,  and  the  time  to  destroy 
that  serpent  is  now.  Again  we  find  ourselves  ham- 
pered by  President  Wilson's  sentimental  regard  for 
the  Russian  revolution.  He  seems  oblivious  of  the  fact 
that  Russia's  repudiation  of  her  debt  to  my  Govern- 
ment and  the  French  people,  amounting  to  more  than 
thirty  milliards  of  francs,  means  an  indirect  indemnity 
paid  by  my  unhappy  country  sevenfold  greater  than 
that  which  she  paid  to  Germany  in  1871.  Is  there  no 
limit  to  our  concessions? 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  What  you  say  is  tragically  true.  I 
recall  with  the  deepest  regret  that  at  Halifax,  to  please 
the  Washington  Government,  we  released  Trotzky 
when  we  had  him  safely  in  irons.  It  was  a  tragic  error. 

ORLANDO.  Why  did  the  Washington  Government 
interest  itself  in  Trotzky's  release? 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  That  is  one  of  the  enigmas  of  the 
war.  He  would  never  have  reached  Petrograd  had 
not  the  Washington  Government  intervened  in  his 
behalf. 

CLEMENCEAU.  Let  us  avoid  similar  errors  in  the 
future.  Only  a  fool  is  twice  burned.  Let  us  gen- 
erously recognize  all  that  President  Wilson  has  done 
for  the  common  cause,  without  forgetting  our  debt  to 
the  dead  and  our  duty  to  the  unborn.  I  remember  the 
advice  of  the  wise  old  Roman,  Scipio,  to  Jugurtha,  the 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

Numidian  prince,  to  "make  friends  with  Rome,  but 
not  with  individual  Romans,"  In  this  spirit,  let  us 
have  more  faith  in  America  and  a  little  less  in  Mr. 
Wilson's  suave  phrases.  He  may  speak  like  the  Beati- 
tudes ;  but  his  methods  sometimes  suggest  Metternich. 

[Door  opens  and  secretary  announces:  "His  Ex- 
cellency the  President  of  the  United  States"  Enter 
MR.  WILSON".  The  three  Premiers  arise  and  shake 
hands  with  him.~[ 

CLEMENCEAU.  Welcome,  Mr.  President.  Our 
heartiest  congratulations  upon  your  extraordinary  re- 
ceptions in  Europe.  The  oldest  of  us  cannot  recall 
the  like  for  enthusiasm. 

ORLANDO.  In  my  country,  Mr.  President,  the  multi- 
tudes hail  you  as  a  god.  Such  enthusiasm  was  never 
witnessed  since  Peter  the  Hermit  preached  the  great 
Crusade  with  his  Deus  vult. 

CLEMENCEAU  [Aside  to  ORLANDO].  But  Peter  had 
no  Monsieur  Creel  with  the  purse 'of  Fortunatus  and 
the  modern  method  of  advance  notices. 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  Even  in  our  country,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, although  we  are  colder  in  temperament  than  our 
Latin  sisters,  you  must  have  appreciated  the  warmth 
and  cordiality  of  your  reception. 

PRESIDENT  WILSON.  I  thank  you  heartily,  gentle- 
men. "The  cause  was  greater  than  the  advocate,  and 
it  was  the  great  cause  that  has  won  for  me  the  plaudits 
of  your  fellow-citizens.  This  should  quicken  in  us  a 
sense  of  deeper  responsibility  in  the  work  that  we  have 
to  do.  We  have  assembled  for  the  purpose  of  doing 
very  much  more  than  making  the  present  settlements 

[106] 


"IT  MIGHT  HAVE  BEEN" 

that  are  necessary.  I  may  say,  without  straining  the 
point,  that  we  are  not  the  representatives  of  Govern- 
ments, but  representatives  of  the  peoples.  It  will  not 
suffice  to  satisfy  Government  circles  anywhere;  it  is 
necessary  that  we  should  satisfy  the  opinion  of  man- 
kind. We  are  bidden  by  these  people  to  make  a  peace 
which  will  make  them  secure.  If  the  Governments  do 
not  obey  the  peoples,  the  peoples  will  surely  break  the 
Governments.  They  will  not  brook  any  denial  of  their 
wish  for  a  League  of  Nations." 

CLEMENCEAU.  Some  of  us,  Mr.  President,  are  not 
enthusiastic  about  your  League  of  Nations.  If  past 
experience  counts  for  anything,  it  is  a  dangerous 
mirage.  We  see  in  it  a  delusion  which  has  repeatedly 
led  peoples  and  nations  to  disaster.  We  are  realists 
and  do  not  wish  to  imitate  the  folly  of  the  dog  in 
dropping  the  bone  of  an  offensive  and  defensive  alli- 
ance for  the  shimmering  shadow  of  an  illusory  com- 
pact between  nations,  which,  under  present  conditions 
of  thought,  I  fear  is  impossible. 

WILSON.  "The  people  who  have  fought  this  war 
have  been  men  from  the  free  nations  who  are  deter- 
mined that  sort  of  thing  should  end  now  and  forever; 
that  there  must  now  be  not  a  balance  of  power,  not  one 
powerful  group  of  nations  set  up  against  one  another, 
but  a  single,  overwhelming,  powerful  group  of  na- 
tions who  shall  be  the  trustees  of  the  peace  of  the 
world/'1 

CLEMENCEAU.  "This  good  old  system  of  alliances 
called  the  'balance  of  power'  seems  to  be  condemned 
nowadays  in  certain  quarters.  But  let  me  say  that  if 

1  Wilson's   speech  at  Guildhall,  London,  in  December,  1918. 

[107] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

such  a  balance  of  power  had  preceded  this  great  war — 
if  England,  America,  France  and  Italy  had  been  allied 
and  balanced  against  the  Teutonic  powers — if  those 
powers  had  declared  among  themselves  that  whoever 
attacked  one  of  them  attacked  the  whole  world,  the 
war  would  never  have  occurred.  This  system  of  al- 
liances, of  a  balance  of  power,  though  condemned  in 
some  quarters,  is  not  renounced  by  me,  and  will  be  my 
guiding  thought  throughout  the  Peace  Conference."  1 
WILSON.  "You  know  that  heretofore  the  world 
has  been  governed,  or  the  attempt  has  been  made  to 
govern  it,  by  partnerships  of  interest,  and  that  they 
have  broken  down.  Interest  does  not  bind  men  to- 
gether. Interest  separates  men.  For,  the  moment 
there  is  the  slightest  departure  from  the  nice  adjust- 
ment of  self-interest,  then  jealousy  begins  to  spring 
up.  There  is  only  one  thing  that  can  bind  peoples  to- 
gether and  that  is  common  devotion  to  right.  The 
United  States  has  always  felt  from  the  very  beginning 
of  her  story,  that  she  must  keep  herself  separate  from 
any  kind  of  connection  with  European  politics.  I 
want  to  say  very  frankly  that  the  United  States  is  not 
now  interested  in  European  politics,  but  she  is  inter- 
ested in  the  partnership  of  right  between  America  and 
Europe.  If  the  future  had  nothing  for  us  but  a  new 
attempt  to  keep  the  world  at  a  right  poise  by  a  balance 
of  power,  then  the  United  States  would  take  no  inter- 
est, because  she  will  join  no  combination  of  powers 
which  is  not  a  combination  of  all.  She  is  not  inter- 

*  Clemenceau's  address  to  the  Chamber  of  Deputies  in  Janu- 
ary, 1919. 

[108] 


"IT  MIGHT  HAVE  BEEN" 

ested  merely  in  the  peace  of  Europe,  but  in  the  peace 
of  the  world."1 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  Theoretically,  Mr.  President,  this 
is  admirable.  But  our  hesitation,  based  on  general 
and  even  very  recent  experience,  is  that,  when  a  crisis 
comes  and  the  time  of  sacrifice  arrives,  nations  do  not 
recognize  this  sense  of  collective  responsibility  which 
you  so  eloquently  advocate,  and  the  solidarity  of 
civilization  is  then  seen  to  be  as  insubstantial  as  a  rain- 
bow. Thus,  we  cannot  forget  that  when  the  present 
crisis  in  civilization  was  suddenly  precipitated — than 
which  none  greater  ever  arose  in  the  distracted  affairs 
of  man — you  yourself  felt  that  America's  highest  in- 
terest lay  in  a  policy  of  neutrality,  and,  to  our  dis- 
comfiture, you  proclaimed  that  with  the  objects  and 
causes  of  the  war,  your  great  nation  was  not  con- 
cerned, and  that  you  were  not  even  interested  to  ex- 
plore the  obscure  fountains  from  which  you  said  it 
had  proceeded. 

WILSON  [Sharply].  Little  will  be  gained  in  our 
deliberations,  Mr.  Prime  Minister,  by  these  unpleasant 
allusions.  We  are  met  to  meet  an  immediate  emer- 
gency. "There  is  a  great  voice  of  humanity  abroad  in 
the  world  just  now,  and  he  who  cannot  hear  it  is  deaf. 
There  is  a  great  compulsion  of  the  common  conscience 
now  in  existence  which,  if  any  statesman  resists,  it  will 
gain  for  him  the  most  unenviable  eminence  in  history. 
We  are  not  obeying  the  mandate  of  parties  or  of 
politics.  We  are  obeying  the  mandate  of  humanity.  I 
hope  we  may  do  something  like  my  very  stern  ancestors 
did,  for  among  my  ancestors  were  those  very  de- 

1  Wilson's  address  at  Manchester,  January,  1919. 

[109] 


IHE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

termined  persons  who  were  known  as  the  Covenanters. 
I  wish  we  could — not  alone  Great  Britain  and  the 
United  States,  but  also  France,  Italy  and  all  the  world 
— enter  into  a  great  Covenant,  declaring  ourselves  first 
of  all  friends  of  mankind  and  uniting  ourselves  to- 
gether, for  the  maintenance  and  triumph  of  right."  1 

CLEMENCEAU  [Dryly].  Suppose  we  drop  the  ab- 
stractions and  consider  that  which  is  of  first  impor- 
tance,— the  modus  operandi  of  this  Conference.  With- 
out consulting  us,  Mr.  President,  you  announced  to 
the  world,  as  the  principles  of  peace,  the  so-called 
"Fourteen  Points/'  which  I  confess  I  have  not  as  yet 
read.  I  understand  that  the  first  of  those  points  is 
your  insistence  that,  in  this  and  in  all  future  peace  con- 
ferences, there  shall  be  a  policy  of  "open  covenants,  to 
be  openly  arrived  at."  Do  you  mean  this  literally? 

WILSON.  I  am  accustomed  to  say  what  I  mean, 
and  I  believe  that  I  have  some  reputation  for  precision 
in  language. 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  Surely,  Mr.  President,  you  do  not 
mean  that  a  conference  of  such  extraordinary  difficulty 
as  this,  where  the  relations  even  between  victorious 
nations  are  most  delicate,  shall  be  conducted  with  the 
same  publicity  as  a  town  meeting?  How  far  will  we 
get  if  each  of  us,  as  the  deliberations  proceed,  shall 
blare  from  the  house  tops  our  inner  purposes  ?  I  never 
heard  that  partridges  could  be  effectively  hunted  with 
a  brass  band. 

CLEMENCEAU.  Your  country,  Mr.  President,  has 
never  adopted  such  a  policy.  As  I  understand  it,  your 
Senate  generally  debates  the  wisdom  of  treaties  which 

*From  Wilson's  address  at  Manchester,  January,  1919. 

[no] 


"IT  MIGHT  HAVE  BEEN" 

are  submitted  for  its  approval  in  the  secrecy  of  execu- 
tive session,  and  I  have  never  heard  any  criticism  of 
this  obviously  wise  course.  Indeed,  I  recall,  in  reading 
your  illuminating  History  of  the  American  People,  that 
your  Constitutional  Convention  met  for  four  months 
in  secret  session,  and  that,  at  the  first  session,  each 
member  made  a  solemn  pledge  to  regard  all  that  took 
place  in  the  secret  sessions  of  the  Convention  as  in- 
violate. Indeed,  I  have  heard  that  a  heavy  penalty 
was  provided,  to  enforce  such  secrecy. 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  I  am  not  a  student  of  your  history, 
as  you  are;  but  I  recall  that,  on  the  last  day  of  that 
great  Convention  in  Philadelphia,  that  the  Convention, 
even  then,  placed  all  its  records  in  the  hands  of  its 
presiding  officer,  your  great  Washington,  with  the  in- 
struction that  he  should  keep  the  deliberations  of  the 
Convention  secret  until  it  was  safe  to  give  publicity  to 
them. 

WILSON.  [Sharply.]  You  need  not  remind  me  of 
this.  These  men  lived  in  the  eighteenth  century,  we 
in  the  effulgent  light  of  the  twentieth.  I  have  pledged 
to  the  world  that  our  proceedings  shall  be  public.  The 
representatives  of  the  fourth  estate,  whose  goodwill  I 
would  not  willingly  sacrifice,  look  to  me  as  the  cham- 
pion of  publicity. 

CLEMENCEAU.  Probably  they  are  more  concerned 
in  selling  their  newspapers  than  in  bringing  our  labors 
to  a  happy  fruition. 

WILSON.  "I  would  like  to  ask  whether  there  be  any 
objection,  owing  to  the  likelihood  of  leaks,  to  having 
the  representatives  of  the  press  present  at  the  Peace 
Conference,  as  practically  nothing  will  be  discussed  in 

[mi 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

that  large  session,  at  which  any  statement  will  be  little 
more  than  a  public  statement  of  what  has  been  decided 
beforehand.  For  my  part,  I  would  prefer  complete 
publicity  to  publicity  by  leak." 

BALFOUR.  "The  suggestion  that  the  press  be  present 
at  the  Conference  is  open  to  this  prima  facie  ob- 
jection, viz.,  that  if  this  is  carried  out  the  meetings 
will  become  purely  formal.  Moreover  if  the  press  be 
present  at  the  large  Conferences,  then  it  will  be  neces- 
sary to  bring  the  other  powers,  say  the  Czecho-Slovaks, 
into  the  small  conferences." 

WILSON.  "I  assume  that  it  will  hardly  be  possible  to 
discuss  cases  such  as  this  in  the  large  Conferences. 
Moreover,  the  Czecho-Slovaks  could  hardly  do  more 
than  repeat  at  the  large  Conference  what  they  have 
already  given  to  the  world.  The  determination  as  to 
what  will  be  proposed  by  the  Great  Powers  at  the  large 
Conference  will  be  decided  by  the  Great  Powers  be- 
forehand/' 

PICHON.  "I  remark  that  should  the  press  be  ad- 
mitted to  the  Peace  Conference  there  will  be  no  end 
of  speaking/' 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  "I  venture  to  express  the  hope  that 
President  Wilson  will  not  press  the  suggestion.  I  fear 
there  will  be  no  end  to  the  Conference  if  reporters  are 
present.  Small  nations  will  want  to  speak  at  gre?* 
length.  Moreover,  as  Mr.  Balfour  has  pointed  out,  this 
might  result  in  very  unpleasant  incidents,  for  instance, 
between  Serbia  and  Montenegro." 

PICHON.  "It  is  to  be  observed,  too,  that  in  the 
study  of  the  preliminaries  of  peace,  it  will  be  danger- 
ous to  give  the  enemy  too  much  information  on  th£ 

[112] 


"IT  MIGHT  HAVE  BEEN" 

points  on  which  there  is  any  difficulty  or  particular 
discussion  between  the  Great  Powers." 

CLEMENCEAU.  "I  feel  we  must  be  unanimous  in 
what  we  do.  There  will  be  much  that  I  will  accept 
to  maintain  our  unanimity.  I  will  make  sacrifices.  I 
will  say  nothing  that  might  tend  to  divide  the  Con- 
ference, but  if  one  small  power  that  has  not  been 
heard  in  our  conversations  asks  how  France  has  come 
to  accept  a  certain  provision,  then  I  will  have  to  reply, 
and  do  not  forget  that  this  reply  will  then  be  made 
before  the  public." 

WILSON.  "I  raised  the  point  for  discussion,  but  will 
not  press  it."1 

CLEMENCEAU  [Aside  to  LLOYD  GEORGE].  Thus 
vanishes  the  first  of  the  Fourteen  Points.  The  others 
will  speedily  follow,  or  I  am  no  prophet. 

WILSON.  We  are  spending  too  much  time  on  these 
details,  and  I  am  not  fond  of  details.  May  I  not 
again  emphasize  that  "there  is  a  great  wind — — " 

CLEMENCEAU.  I  think  "hot  air"  is  your  picturesque 
American  phrase. 

WILSON.  [Ignores  interruption  and  continues]. 
"of  moral  force  moving  through  the  world,  and  every 
man  who  opposes  himself  to  that  wind  will  go  down  in 
disgrace.  The  task  of  those  who  are  gathered  here  to 
make  the  settlement  of  this  peace  is  greatly  simplified 
by  the  fact  that  they  are  the  masters  of  no  one;  they 
are  the  servants  of  mankind,  and  if  we  do  not  heed  the 

1  This  entire  colloquy  from  Mr.  Wilson's  inquiry  beginning,  **I 
would  like  to  ask,"  to  his  abandonment  of  his  plea  for  opea 
covenants  is  in  the  precise  language  as  recorded  in  the  Confer- 
ence minutes.  See  Thompson's  Peace  Conference  Day  by  Day, 
p.  102  et  seq. 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

mandates  of  mankind,  we  shall  make  ourselves  the 
most  conspicuous  and  deserved  failures  in  the  history 
of  the  world.  Statesmen  must  follow  the  clarified 
common  thought,  or  be  broken."1 

CLEMENCEAU.  What  is  this  clarified  common 
thought,  Mr.  President? 

WILSON.  It  is,  well,  it  is — the  voices  of  good  men 
and  plain  people  everywhere. 

CLEMENCEAU.  This  is  somewhat  vague.  I  have 
not  found,  in  my  political  experience,  that  the  voices 
of  good  men  and  plain  people — whatever  "plain  peo- 
ple" are — are  always  in  agreement.  May  we  not  un- 
derstand with  more  definiteness  what  this  wonderful 
synthesis  of  statesmanship,  which  you  call  the  "clarified 
common  thought,"  is? 

WILSON.  Well,  there  are  great  truths  which  do 
not  permit  of  exact  definitions.  There  are  forces 
which  rise  and  operate  as  the  tides.  Clarified  common 
thought  is  the  sober  opinion  of  the  people. 

CLEMENCEAU.     But  who  is  the  clarifier? 

WILSON.     They  who  have  seen  the  great  vision. 

CLEMENCEAU.  But  what  is  the  process  of  clarifica- 
tion ?  Is  it  the  common  organ  of  democracy — the  bal- 
lot-box? 

ORLANDO.  Recent  events  in  my  country  make  me 
wonder  whether  your  clarified  common  thought  may 
not  be  such  emotional  excitement  as  raised  Rienzi  to 
power — only  to  hurl  him  down  the  steps  of  the 
Capitol. 

WILSON.     Your  lack  of  faith  surprises  me.     I  pity 

1  Address  of  Wilson  at  the  Sorbonne,  December  21,  1918.  See 
Thompson's  Peace  Conference  Day  by  Day,  p.  46. 

[114] 


"IT  MIGHT  HAVE  BEEN" 

'those  who  have  not  seen  the  vision  and  heard  voices 
in  the  air. 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  I  have  a  more  concrete  mandate. 
My  people  have  recently  returned  me  to  power  with 
overwhelming  majorities.  I  trust  the  recent  elections 
in  your  country  have  given  you  a  similar  mandate,  or 
•was  their  common  thought  not  sufficiently  clarified? 

WILSON.  Your  reference  to  the  recent  elections  in 
my  country  is  indelicate.  My  countrymen  have  a  deep 
and  very  genuine  ardor  for  my  great  vision  of  a 
League  of  Nations. 

CLEMENCEAU.  True,  Mr.  President.  We  may  not 
too  curiously  inquire  into  any  possible  difference  be- 
tween your  authority  and  the  will  of  your  people,  as 
expressed  at  the  ballot-box;  but,  by  the  same  token, 
might  it  not  be  well,  in  your  public  addresses,  to  put 
the  soft  pedal  on  this  constant  appeal  over  the  heads  of 
the  existing  Governments  to  the  masses?  It  only 
serves  to  make  our  task  more  difficult.  After  all,  the 
masses  can  only  work  their  will  through  Governments 
of  their  own  selection.  The  contrast  that  you  have 
drawn  in  your  speeches  in  England,  Italy,  and  my  own 
country,  between  existing  Governments  and  the  masses, 
as  though  their  wills  were  at  variance,  is  not  calculated 
to  strengthen  the  stability  of  these  Governments  or  to 
render  them  effective  for  the  great  purposes  that  we 
all  have  in  mind.  Two  months  have  passed  since  the 
Armistice,  and  to-day  we  are  no  further  advanced 
towards  peace  than  on  the  day  of  the  Armistice. 
Napoleon  would  have  made  a  peace  in  half  the  time. 

WILSON.  Do  I  understand  that  you  are  charging 
me  with  responsibility  for  this  delay  ? 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

CLEMENCEAU.  Not  at  all,  Mr.  President.  When 
we  learned  that  you  were  about  to  honor  us  with  a 
yisit,  we  rejoiced,  not  merely  in  having  the  great  help 
of  your  cooperation  at  the  peace  table;  but  because  it 
gave  us  an  opportunity,  which  we  had  long  desired,  to 
pay  a  tribute  to  you  and  your  great  country  which  did 
so  much  to  make  the  result  a  decisive  and  gratifying 
one.  All  this  we  gratefully  appreciate.  We  are  to- 
day confronted  with  the  greatest  problem  that  ever 
confronted  any  peace  conference,  and  it  is  to  be  feared, 
with  the  inevitable  differences  of  opinion  and  disap- 
pointments, that  when  once  the  Peace  Conference  ad- 
journs it  will  be  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  recon- 
Tene  it.  We  therefore  think  it  most  important  that 
each  of  us  should  be  reasonably  sure  that  that  which 
we  promise  in  the  name  of  our  respective  countries 
will  be  accepted  by  them,  or,  in  any  event,  have  binding 
obligation,  and,  as  these  questions  cannot  be  discussed 
to  any  advantage  in  the  Peace  Conference,  it  seems  the 
part  of  candor  and  sincerity  to  discuss  the  question 
now. 

WILSON.  Gentlemen,  you  seem  to  forget  that  I  am 
President  of  the  United  States! 

CLEMENCEAU.  No,  Mr.  President;  we  have  not 
forgotten  it,  and  are  greatly  honored  that,  for  the  first 
time  in  history,  a  President  of  the  United  States  is 
here.  But  we  should  be  faithless  to  the  great  interests 
which  are  in  our  keeping  if  we  were  blind  to  the  fact 
that  under  the  Constitution  of  your  country  no  treaty 
that  you  can  make  with  us  can  have  any  moral  or  legal 
force  unless  two-thirds  of  the  Senate  concur. 

WILSON  [Grimly].  You  can  leave  that  to  me, 
[116] 


"IT  MIGHT  HAVE  BEEN" 

gentlemen.  I  shall  see  to  it  that  the  Senate  does  con- 
cur in  what  I  promise,  without  omitting  the  crossing 
of  a  "t"  or  the  dotting  of  an  "i." 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  Under  ordinary  circumstances, 
Mr.  President,  that  assurance  would  be  quite  satisfac- 
tory; but  we  are  further  embarrassed  by  the  fact 
that  those  who  share  with  your  Excellency  the  re- 
sponsibility for  the  making  of  treaties  have  already 
served  notice  upon  us  that  they  do  not  agree  with 
some  of  your  Excellency's  ideas  with  respect  to  the 
nature  of  the  Peace  and  particularly  the  League  of 
Nations. 

WILSON.    Who  are  they  that  question  my  authority  ? 

ORLANDO.  Our  dispatches  from  Washington  in- 
dicate that  the  leading  members  of  the  majority  of  the 
Senate,  who  apparently  are  in  opposition  to  your 
administration,  have  served  notice  that  they  do  not 
favor  all  of  the  Fourteen  Points  and  particularly 
question  the  value  of  the  League  of  Nations. 

WILSON.  Pygmy  minds,  pygmy  minds !  You  need 
not  concern  yourselves  with  them.  They  will  accept 
what  I  bring  from  Paris.  They  will  not  even  know 
what  I  do  until  it  is  done  and  past  recall.  Before 
leaving  America  I  took  possession  of  all  the  cables, 
and  my  Secretary  of  War  and  Postmaster-General 
will  do  the  rest.  The  Senate !  Bah !  It  is  as  putty  in 
my  hands. 

CLEMENCEAU.  Your  Excellency's  assurance  is  most 
comforting.  Under  ordinary  circumstances  it  is  all 
that  we  could  ask;  but  it  is  a  matter  of  life  and  death 
to  the  millions  of  people  whom  we  represent  that 
there  should  be  no  possible  mistake.  As  your  Excel- 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

lency  knows,  I,  for  one,  have  never  believed  in  the 
League  of  Nations.  There  is  an  old  system  of  al- 
liances which  I  would  not  renounce  except  a  better 
method  of  defense  is  offered.  If,  therefore,  we  aban- 
don a  tried  method,  which  protected  France  for  fifty 
years  and  finally  saved  her  in  1914,  in  favor  of  the 
League  of  Nations,  we  must  know  primarily  that  your 
country  will  accept  the  League.  So  far  as  my  imperfect 
knowledge  of  your  politics  can  aid  me,  I  do  not  know 
that  your  country  has  ever  made  the  proposed  League 
of  Nations  the  subject  of  a  referendum,  or  that  it  was 
an  issue  in  either  of  the  elections  in  which  your  people 
did  themselves  the  great  honor  of  electing  you  as 
Chief  Magistrate.  But  we  are  naturally  concerned 
that,  during  your  last  election  a  few  months  ago, 
and  after  you  had  announced  your  great  purpose  to 
form  a  league  of  nations,  that  you  made  an  appeal 
to  your  countrymen  for  a  vote  of  confidence.  [Draws 
a  piece  of  paper  out  of  Ms  pocket.]  Ah,  yes;  I  have 
it  here.  Let  me  read  it: 

[Wilson,  as  Clemenceau  reads f  has  a  very  pained 
expression.  Clemenceau  reads  very  slowly,  as  though 
rolling  a  sweet  morsel  under  his  tongue. ] 

"If  you  have  approved  of  my  leadership  and  wish 
me  to  continue  to  be  your  unembarrassed  spokesman 
in  affairs  at  home  and  abroad,  I  earnestly  beg  that  you 
will  express  yourselves  unmistakably  to  that  effect  by 
returning  a  Democratic  majority  to  both  the  Senate 
and  the  House  of  Representatives.  /  am  your  servant 
and  will  accept  your  judgment  without  cavilt  but  my 
power  to  administer  the  great  trust  assigned  me  by  the 

[H8J 


"IT  MIGHT  HAVE  BEEN" 

Constitution  would  be  seriously  impaired  should  your' 
judgment  be  adverse,  and  I  must  frankly  tell  you  so 
because  so  many  critical  issues  depend  upon  your  ver- 
dict. No  scruple  of  taste  must  in  grim  times  like  these 
stand  in  the  way  of  speaking  the  plain  truth." 

The  response  of  your  people  to  this  appeal  has 
greatly  puzzled  us.  Apparently  they  replied  by  de- 
clining to  "accept  your  judgment  without  cavil"  and  to 
make  you  their  "unembarrassed  spokesman"  by  a  ma- 
jority of  over  one  million  votes.  It  would  be  a  great 
satisfaction  to  have  you  explain  it  to  us.  In  effete  Eu- 
rope, such  a  negative  reply  to  a  request  for  a  vote  of 
confidence  could  only  lead  to  the  resignation  of  the 
public  official  who  thus  vainly  challenged  the  confidence 
of  his  electorate.  With  your  more  democratic  meth- 
ods of  ignoring  the  opinions  of  the  people,  as  regis- 
tered at  the  polls,  we  naturally  have  no  concern;  but,  so 
far  as  the  ratification  by  your  Senate  of  any  treaty  that 
we  may  negotiate,  is  concerned,  we  are  naturally  and 
vitally  concerned  in  the  result  of  your  recent  elections 
in  America  and  the  speeches  made  upon  the  floor  of 
the  Senate  by  the  leaders  of  the  majority. 

WILSON  [Somewhat  brusquely'].  Are  you  quali- 
fied to  interpret  the  recent  American  elections? 

CLEMEN CEAU.  How  could  I  misinterpret  the  sig- 
nificance of  your  elections,  when  your  Government  re- 
quested mine  to  suppress  the  fact  in  the  French  Press? 
However,  it  is  not  I,  Mr.  President,  that  interpret^ 
your  mandate  from  your  people.  You  interpreted 
it  for  us ;  for  you  said  that  "the  return  of  a  Republican 
majority  to  either  House  of  Congress  would  certainly 
be  interpreted  on  the  other  side  of  the  water  as  a  'repu- 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

diation*  "  of  your  leadership.  As  your  people  have  re- 
turned to  both  Houses  of.  Congress  large  majorities 
against  you,  how  can  we  ignore  their  reply  to  your 
appeal,  unless  we  are  prepared  to  assume  that  America 
is  not  a  democracy  but  an  autocracy  ? 

WILSON.  Enough  of  this.  I  am  not  here  to  be 
catechized. 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  We  are  not  catechizing,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent; the  matter  is  too  great  and  vital  for  mere  per- 
sonalities. It  is,  as  my  confrere  of  France  has  said, 
a  matter  of  life  and  death  to  us  to  know  whether,  if 
we  concede  to  America  that  which  you  say  she  asks,. 
America  will  accept  the  burdens  as  well  as  the  benefits 
of  your  League  of  Nations.  In  your  own  eloquent 
words,  which  my  French  colleague  has  just  read,  you 
well  said  that  "no  scruple  of  taste  must  in  grim  times 
like  these  be  allowed  to  stand  in  the  way  of  speaking 
the  plain  truth."  May  we  not,  then,  speak  plainly? 

WILSON  [Abandoning  his  angry  tone\.  Gentle- 
men, you  need  give  yourselves  no  concern  about  this 
point.  I  may  say  to  you  that  I  have  a  plan  which 
will  defeat  my  petty  enemies  in  the  Senate.  I  shall 
so  interweave  the  Covenant  with  the  Peace  Treaty 
that  the  Senate  cannot  reject  the  former  without  also 
rejecting  the  Peace  Treaty,  and  you  will  agree  that 
this  is  inconceivable.  Have,  therefore,  no  concern, 
for  I  shall  "delve  one  yard  beneath  their  mines  and 
blow  them  to  the  moon." 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  A  very  happy  Shakespearean  quo- 
tation, Mr.  President,  and  with  our  wish  for  the  com- 
plete success  of  your  efforts  we  can  only  hope  that 
it  will  not  be  a  case,  to  continue  your  quotation,  of 

[120] 


"IT  MIGHT  HAVE  BEEN" 

a  very  able  engineer  "hoist  with  his  own  petard." 
Nevertheless,  it  would  be  more  satisfactory  if  in  some 
way  we  could  have  something  more  than  your  assur- 
ance of  your  ability  to  defeat  your  political  adversaries, 
great  as  our  confidence  is  in  your  resourcefulness. 
If  I  could  venture  a  suggestion,  therefore,  might  I  ask 
whether  it  would  not  be  practicable  for  you  to  bring 
to  Paris  some  representatives  of  the  majority  of  the 
Senate,  so  that  they  would  be  available  for  consultation 
at  such  times  and  places  as  your  Excellency  thought 
proper;  so  that  when  you  and  we  had  agreed  upon 
the  essentials  of  the  Treaty,  we  could,  before  an- 
nouncing them  to  the  world,  get  the  informal  assent 
of  these  representatives  of  the  majority  in  your  Con- 
gress, and  thus  avoid  a  possible  miscarriage  of  our 
great  plans? 

WILSON.  Certainly  not.  I  have  managed  the  affairs 
of  my  administration  without  the  cooperation  of  the 
leaders  of  the  Opposition,  and  nothing  would  be  more 
distasteful  to  me  than  to  have  any  of  them  take  part, 
even  in  a  minor  capacity,  in  the  coming  conference. 
Your  suggestion  is  impossible. 

CLEMENCEAU.  Why  impossible,  Mr.  President? 
We  of  France,  of  Italy,  and  of  England  have  formed 
Coalition  Governments,  have  gathered  about  us  the 
representatives  of  the  various  Parties  into  a  sacred 
union.  We  consult  freely  with  them,  and  thus  we 
know  that  we  speak  the  voice  of  the  united  country. 

WILSON.  I  will  not  further  discuss  the  suggestion. 
It  is  now  too  late  for  me  to  discuss  these  questions 
with  men  of  narrow  vision  who  seek  to  undermine  my 
influence. 

[121] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  We  cheerfully  accept  your  con- 
clusion, Mr.  President.  You  know  best  the  problems 
of  your  own  Government;  but  would  it  not  at  least 
be  practicable  to  give  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Af- 
fairs of  the  Senate,  as  we  understand  your  predeces- 
sors have  often  done  under  similar  circumstances, 
the  tentative  plan  of  your  League  of  Nations,  so  that 
they  can  offer  any  criticism  that  occurs  to  them;  so 
that,  in  default  of  criticism  or  objection,  we  can  safely 
assume  that  the  Senate  will  ratify  any  treaty  we  may 
formulate  ? 

WILSON.  Assuredly  not.  Your  second  suggestion 
is  even  more  objectionable  than  the  first.  I  do  not 
propose  to  allow  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs  to 
know  anything  until  we  have  reached  an  agreement. 
Again  my  cable  censorship  will  take  care  of  that.  I 
unfortunately  have  not  the  power  to  adjourn  Congress, 
as  you  have  [turning  to  LLOYD  GEORGE],  Mr.  Prime 
Minister,  with  your  Parliament.  The  present  session 
of  Congress  expires  by  limitation  on  March  4,  but  on 
that  day,  no  matter  what  the  condition  of  the  Govern- 
ment's business  is,  I  shall  refuse  to  reconvene  the  Con- 
gress until  I  have  presented  them  with  un  fait  accom- 
pli. When  I  return  with  that  Treaty,  the  Senators  "will 
find  the  Covenant  not  only  in  it,  but  so  many  threads 
of  the  Treaty  tied  to  the  Covenant  that  they  cannot 
dissect  the  Treaty  from  the  Covenant  without  destroy- 
ing the  whole  vital  structure."  Let  us  drop  any  fur- 
ther discussion  of  the  question,  which  concerns  me 
and  my  country,  and  not  you  or  your  countries. 

ORLANDO.  But  it  does  concern  us.  With  Italy  it 
is  a  matter  of  life  or  death.  I  confess,  Mr.  President, 

[122] 


"IT  MIGHT  HAVE  BEEN" 

we  are  all  disappointed,  for  the  situation  in  Europe  is 
growing  more  critical  every  hour.  I  do  not  know 
what  day  revolution  may  break  out  in  Italy.  Is  it  a 
time  for  false  delicacy?  Do  we  not  more  justly  de- 
serve each  other's  esteem  and  confidence  by  speaking 
our  inner  thoughts?  If  We  are,  in  this  greatest  of  all 
peace  conferences,  to  put  an  end  to  the  "old  diplo- 
macy," against  which  you  have  eloquently  inveighed, 
must  we  not  reveal  to  each  other  our  inner  convic- 
tions? Otherwise  we  will  make  the  world  safe,  not  for 
democracy,  but  for  hypocrisy. 

LLOYD  GEORGE.  Your  summary  method  of  dis- 
posing of  your  Senate  fills  us  with  wonder  and  ad- 
miration. In  English  history  there  is  nothing  com- 
parable to  it  since  Cromwell  entered  the  House  of 
Commons  and,  pointing  to  the  mace,  said:  "Take 
away  that  bauble!"  But  will  your  Senate  so  readily 
abdicate  its  authority?  You  cannot  take  reasonable 
offense,  Mr.  President,  at  our  natural  desire  to  know 
whether  your  demand  for  the  League  of  Nations  is 
shared  by  your  Senate,  whose  final  concurrence  is 
necessary,  for  you  have  not  hesitated,  in  your  public 
addresses,  to  discriminate  between  our  Governments 
and  the  people  whom  we  are  supposed  to  represent. 
We  had  assumed  that  our  Governments  presumptively 
represented  their  peoples ;  but  you  have  suggested  that 
this  may  not  be  so.  Our  inquiry  as  to  the  attitude  of 
your  Senate  does  not  rest  upon  conjecture.  The  lead- 
ers of  the  present  majority  of  your  Senate  have  vir- 
tually served  notice  upon  us  that  the  Senate  will  not 
look  with  favor  upon  the  League  of  Nations. 

We  are  advised  that  thirty-nine  members  of  the 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

Senate,  more  than  a  third  of  that  body  and  therefore 
able  to  defeat  any  treaty  that  you  m!ay  negotiate,  have 
signed  a  formal  declaration,  which  I  think  I  have  with 
me.  [Takes  a  piece  of  paper  out  of  his  pocket.'}  Yes, 
here  it  is.  They  say 

"that  it  is  the  sense  of  the  Senate  that  the  negotia-* 
tions  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  should  imme-- 
diately  be  directed  to  the  utmost  expedition  of  the 
urgent  business  of  negotiating  peace  terms  with  Ger- 
many, satisfactory  to  the  United  States  and  the  na- 
tions with  whom  the  United  States  is  associated  in 
the  war  against  the  German  Government,  and  the 
proposal  for  a  League  of  Nations  to  insure  the  per- 
manent peace  of  the  world  should  then  be  taken  up 
for  careful  and  serious  consideration." 

We  cannot  give  exclusive  recognition  to  their  pointed 
intimation  without  an  undue  slight  to  your  great 
office;  but  is  it  not  equally  true  that  we  cannot  give 
exclusive  recognition  to  your  views  without  the  mani- 
fest danger  of  an  equal  slight  to  a  representative  body 
having  at  least  equal  powers  with  your  own  in  the 
making  of  treaties  for  the  United  States?  With  you 
only  can  we  deal,  and  to  you  only  must  we  appeal 
to  prevent  such  a  catastrophe  as  would  result  from  a 
rejection  by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  of  the 
Peace  Treaty  that  we  shall  negotiate.  Your  country 
is  the  keystone  of  the  arch  of  the  League  of  Nations, 
and  we  must  know,  before  irreparable  consequences 
ensue,  whether  those  who  are  charged  by  your  Consti- 
tution with  the  treaty-ntaking  obligation  are  satisfied 
that  the  United  States  should  be  such  a  keystone. 

CLEMENCEAU.  It  seems  to  us,  Mr.  President,  that 
[124] 


"IT  MIGHT  HAVE  BEEN" 

if  we  are  to  accept  your  plan  of  a  League  of  Nations, 
that  it  is  inadvisible  that  it  should  be  incorporated 
into  the  treaty  of  peace  with  Germany.  Has  it  any 
place  there,  especially  as  France  will  not  welcome 
Germany  into  the  league,  at  least  for  many  years 
to  come.  In  making  a  treaty  of  peace  with  one 
nation,  why  should  we  incorporate  into  it  a  scheme  for 
a  world  government  in  which  that  nation,  for  the*  time 
being,  will  have  no  part?  The  views  of  your  Senators, 
who  will  have  the  final  decision  in  your  country,  have 
my  entire  concurrence.  Let  us  accept  their  very  prac- 
tical suggestion  and  make  peace  first  and  then  con- 
struct your  super-state. 

ORLANDO.  I  agree  with  my  confrere  of  France,  as 
L  think  all  European  statesmen  do.  The  immediate 
problem  is  peace,  and  never  was  that  problem  more 
urgent  for  mankind.  European  civilization  will  fall 
into  ruin  unless  it  can  have  peace  speedily.  We  are  all 
disposed  to  give  a  trial  to  your  noble  scheme  for  a 
superstate,  but  we  must  have  peace  first,  or  we  Eu- 
ropean statesmen  cannot  be  answerable  for  the  conse- 
quences. 

WILSON.  Upon  this  point,  I  am  adamant.  The 
League  of  Nations  must  be  a  part  of  the  treaty  with 
Germany. 

LLOYD  GEORGE.     Why  "must,"  Mr.   President? 

WILSON.  Because  it  concerns  my  prestige  and 
power. 

CLEMEN CEAU.  And  must  Europe  be  sacrificed  to 
that  end  ?  Is  it  possible  that  your  political  fortunes  can 
weigh  against  the  welfare  of  the  world? 

WILSON  [Ignoring  CLEMENCEAU].     I  say  "must'' 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

advisedly.  I  will  frankly  explain  the  reason.  Under  the 
archaic  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  with  its  New- 
tonian theory  of  checks  and  balances,  I  am  "cribbed, 
cabined  and  confined"  by  a  reactionary  Senate.  These 
thirty-nine  Senators  are  the  ruling  spirits. 

"The  greatest  consultative  privilege  of  the  Senate — > 
the  greatest  in  dignity,  at  least,  if  not  in  effect  upon  the 
interests  of  the  country — is  its  right  to  a  ruling  voice 
in  the  ratification  of  treaties  with  foreign  powers.  The 
President  really  has  no  voice  at  all  in  the  con- 
clusions of  the  Senate  with  reference  to  his  diplomatic 
transactions,  or  with  reference  to  any  of  the  matters 
upon  which  he  consults  it.  He  is  made  to  approach 
that  body  as  a  servant  conferring  with  his  master,  and 
of  course  deferring  to  that  master.  His  only  power  of 
compelling  compliance  on  the  part  of  the  Senate  lies 
in  his  initiative  in  negotiation,  which  affords  him  a 
chance  to  get  the  country  into  such  scrapes,  so  pledged 
in  the  view  of  the  world  to  certain  courses  of  actionf 
that  the  Senate  hesitates  to  bring  about  the  appearance 
of  dishonor  which  would  follow  its  refusal  to  ratify 
the  rash  promises  or  to  support  the  indiscreet  threats, 
of  the  Department  of  State."  1 

To  defeat  my  enemies  in  the  Senate,  I  propose  to 
get  my  country  into  such  a  "scrape"  as  it  never  was 
before,  by  making  it  a  necessity  to  accept  the  League 
of  Nations,  which  it  might  otherwise  reject,  or  sacri- 
fice the  great  name  which  it  now  enjoys  as  the  world 
pacificator.  It  is  essential  to  my  plans  that  I  create 
a  situation  which  will  make  it  impossible  for  the  Sen- 
ate to  exercise  an  independent  judgment — and  this 
1  Wilson's  Constitutional  Government  in  the  United  States. 

[126], 


"IT  MIGHT  HAVE  BEEN" 

must  be  done  if  I  am  to  participate  in  the  coming 
conference. 

CLEMENCEAU  [Quietly].  Why  again  "must,"  Mr. 
President?  Since  Napoleon,  the  word  "must"  has  not 
been  applied  to  the  representatives  of  the  great  Euro- 
pean powers. 

WILSON  [Angrily].  I  meet  your  challenge.  I  hold 
the  sword  and  purse  of  America,  and,  for  all  practical 
purposes  in  this  conference,  I  do  not  represent  America 
— /  am  America.  The  events  of  the  last  five  years 
should  teach  you  this.  I  kept  my  country  out  of  the 
war  as  long  as  it  pleased  me.  I  led  it  into  the  war  when 
again  it  pleased  me.  I  still  control  its  credit  and  gran- 
aries, and  if  Europe  wants  money  and  food — and  I 
think  it  is  in  sore  need  of  both — it  must  respect  my 
wishes. 

CLEMENCEAU.  You  amaze  us  in  your  arbitrary 
demands.  Who  won  this  war?  And  who  has  the  best 
right  to  impose  the  terms  of  peace? 

WILSON.  Without  the  army  and  the  navy  of  the 
United  States,  of  which  I  am  the  Commander-in-Chief, 
what  would  be  your  situation  now? 

CLEMENCEAU.  For  every  dollar  that  your  country 
spent,  France  spent  five;  for  every  life  that  it  gave  to 
the  great  cause,  France  gave  at  least  eleven.  Let  me 
ask  you,  Mr.  President,  between  1914  and  1918,  who 
were  defending  the  frontiers  of  civilization  when  you 
were  working  overtime  on  your  typewriter? 

WILSON  [Ignoring  CLEMENCEAU]  .  I  still  insist  that, 
whatever  be  the  result,  the  Covenant  must  be  a  part  of 
the  treaty  with  Germany.  I  must  return  to  America 
with  my  Covenant  ratified  by  the  conference.  "I  speak 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

for  the  peoples  of  the  world.  When  I  speak  of  the 
nations  of  the  world,  I  do  not  speak  of  the  governments 
of  the  world.  I  speak  of  the  peoples  who  constitute  the 
nations  of  the  world.  They  are  in  the  saddle  and  they 
are  going  to  see  to  it  that  if  their  present  governments 
do  not  do  their  will,  some  other  governments  shall. 
And  the  secret  is  out  and  the  present  governments 
know  it." 

[CLEMENCEAU  closes  his  eyes,  crosses  his  hands,  cov- 
ered with  suede  gloves,  on  his  lap,  and,  sitting  back  in 
his  chair,  apparently  sinks  into  a  dreamy  reverie.  A 
prolonged  silence  ensues,  during  which  ORLANDO  and 
LLOYD  GEORGE  look  anxiously  first  at  the  President, 
who  is  standing  erect,  leaning  with  a  clenched  fist  upon 
the  table,  and  then  upon  CLEMENCEAU,  with  a  face  as 
impassive  as  parchment,  as  he,  with  half-closed  eye- 
lids, dreamily  looks  upon  the  clock,  as  though  it  were  a 
symbol  of  the  future.  Finally,  CLEMENCEAU  breaks 
the  painful  silence.] 

CLEMENCEAU.     Well,  we  will  not. 

WILSON.  [Greatly  astonished,  his  voice  shaken  with 
emotion].  Will  not? 

CLEMENCEAU.     [Quietly  but  firmly].     Will  not. 

WILSON.  Your  attitude,  gentlemen,  is  an  affront. 
You  ask  the  scope  of  my  credentials,  although  I  am 
ihere  in  my  own  right  and  in  my  own  proper  person.  It 
<do£S  not  comport  with  my  dignity  or  that  of  my  coun- 
ttry  that  I  should  permit  you  thus  to  challenge  my 
; authority.  Nothing  is  left  for  me  but  to  leave  the 
•Peace  Conference.  I  shall  cable  for  the  George  Wash- 
ington to-night  and  return  at  once  to  my  country. 


"IT  MIGHT  HAVE  BEEN" 

ORLANDO  [Rising  in  haste].  You  surely  do  not 
mean  that,  Mr.  President.  It  would  be  an  irreparable 
calamity  for  the  United  States  to  withdraw  from  the 
Peace  Conference,  especially  after  the  great  expecta- 
tions which  your  eloquent  speeches  have  aroused  in  the 
masses  of  Europe. 

LLOYD  GEORGE  [Rising'}.  There  must  be  some 
method  of  meeting  so  grave  a  situation  without  such  a 
disastrous  step  as  you  now  intimate.  We  hope  that 
you  will  reconsider  your  determination  and  not  take 
amiss  our  natural  and  vital  interest  in  the  question  that 
we  have  discussed. 

[PICHON  and  BALFOUR  also  rise  with  great  agita- 
tion to  dissuade  the  President  from  leaving.'} 

CLEMENCEAU  [Who  has  remained  sitting,  now 
arises  and  faces  the  President].  Mr.  President,  your 
ultimatum  surprises  us.  There  is  little  hope  for  the 
Peace  Conference  and  for  the  future  of  mankind  if 
the  representative  of  one  of  the  great  nations  shall 
threaten  to  withdraw  from  the  Conference  if  any  in- 
quiry is  made  r.s  to  the  full  scope  of  his  credentials  or 
the  probable  r.ction  of  his  nation.  However,  my  con- 
freres need  have  no  anxiety.  You  will  not  withdraw'. 

WILSON.  Why  not  ?  Who  will  stay  me  ?  Freely  I 
came  here,  and  freely  I  will  depart. 

CLEMENCEAU.  Freely  you  may  have  come,  but 
freely  you  cannot  depart.  None  of  us  is  free  in  this 
great  crisis  of  humanity.  All  of  us  are  only  as  the  sea- 
weed which  floats  upon  the  surface  of  the  Gulf  Strej.n. 
It  indicates  the  direction  of  that  mighty  current. 

[129] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

too,  are  floating  on  a  great  and  irresistible  current  of 
events  whose  origin  and  destination,  like  the  Gulf 
Stream,  God  only  knows. 

Let  us  face  the  situation  and  be  frank  with  each 
other  in  this  solemn  hour  of  destiny.  We  cannot  leave 
this  Conference  without  some  agreement,  nor  can  you. 
You  think  that  you  are  free  to  return  to  your  coun- 
try, your  great  task  undone,  but  a  moment's  reflection 
will  convince  you  that  such  is  not  the  fact.  From  the 
time  you  put  foot  on  the  deck  of  the  George  Washing- 
ton to  come  to  Paris,  you  ceased  to  be  a  free  agent, 
and  you  and  we  are  all  bound  hand  and  foot  by  the 
force  of  imperious  necessity.  That  necessity  compels 
all  of  us  to  remain  in  Paris  until  some  result  is  ac- 
complished. 

If  you  left  Paris  because  we  made  a  natural  inquiry 
as  to  the  scope  of  your  credentials  you  would  suffer 
more  than  we.  From  the  pedestal  to  which  you  have 
been  elevated  by  the  acclaims  of  uncounted  millions 
of  Europeans,  your  great  reputation  would  be  dashed 
to  the  ground  and  broken  into  a  thousand  pieces. 

You  cannot  leave.  The  dead  forbid  you.  When  you 
first  arrived  we  urged  you  to  visit  the  desolated  regions 
of  France.  You  preferred  the  plaudits  of  mobs  in  our 
large  cities.  Again  I  invite  you  to  visit  the  desolated 
regions  of  the  war.  There  lie  the  slain,  among  whom 
your  noble  youth  are  already  numbered.  Their 
tongues  are  mute  and  cannot  vie  in  sound  with  the 
frenzied  plaudits  of  the  living  masses  who  greeted 
you  in  London,  Paris,  and  Rome.  But  the  dead  are 
eloquent  beyond  the  power  of  the  living,  and  ad- 
monish us,  in  this  fateful  hour,  that  for  us  to  sep- 

[130] 


"IT  MIGHT  HAVE  BEEN" 

arate  on  account  of  petty  considerations  of  personal 
dignity,  with  our  work  undone,  would  be  to  crucify 
the  cause  of  justice  afresh  and  put  it  to  an  open  shame. 

[PRESIDENT  WILSON  hesitates  for  a  few  minutes, 
walks  the  floor  in  great  emotion,  and  finally  resumes 
his  seat  with  his  confreres,  who  have  been  awaiting 
his  decision.'} 

WILSON.  Gentlemen,  you  are  right.  I  dared  to 
come,  and  no  statesman  of  my  country  ever  made  a 
greater  gamble.  My  worst  critic  cannot  charge  me 
with  any  lack  of  courage.  I  dare  not,  however,  re- 
turn unless  I  have  accomplished  something.  I  have  a 
high  and  honorable  ambition  to  shape  the  peace  of 
the  world  in  one  of  the  greatest  moments  of  history. 
Do  not  challenge  my  authority  further.  Leave  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States  to  me.  By  conciliation 
or  coercion  I  will  make  these  recalcitrant  Senators 
ratify  what  we  agree  upon.  They,  too,  are  only  bub- 
bles floating  upon  a  swift  current  of  events,  and  they, 
too,  will  feel  the  imperious  force  of  manifest  destiny. 
I  accept  the  responsibility  for  their  concurrence  in 
what  we  agree  upon. 

CLEMENCEAU.  This  does  not  solve  the  difficulty, 
but  we  have  at  least  satisfied  our  own  consciences 
by  bringing  this  vital  matter  to  your  Excellency's 
attention.  As,  however,  you  think  otherwise,  and 
for  reasons  that  have  commended  themselves  to  your 
discerning  judgment  have  declined  to  associate  with 
yourself  in  Paris  the  representatives  of  the  Senate,  we 
can  only  deal  with  you. 

Therefore  upon  you  is  the  terrible  responsibility. 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

In  this  matter  there  must  be  no  doubt.  History  will 
judge  all  of  us  and  woe  to  him  who  makes  a  wreckage 
of  the  world's  peace  which  has  been  so  dearly  bought 
by  the  blood  of  millions!  If  we  yield  to  your  imperi- 
ous demand  and  America  repudiates  you,  and  the  peace 
of  the  world  is  wrecked,  the  Future  will  justly  hold 
you  and  you  alone  responsible.  With  this  understand- 
ing, let  France,  which  has  little  faith  in  your  League  of 
Nations,  accept  it,  because,  as  you  say,  America  wishes 
it.  God  grant  that  in  this  there -may  be  no  mistake; 
for  if,  to  please  America,  we  accept  the  League  of 
Nations  in  lieu  of  the  more  direct  and  practical  pro- 
tection of  an  offensive  and  defensive  alliance,  and 
America  rejects  the  League,  then  our  last  state  is 
worse  than  our  first,  and  children  yet  unborn  will  rue 
the  fatal  error.  Let  us  face  realities  and  remember 
the  future.  If  we  err  now,  a  year  hence  you  may  be  a 
President  without  a  nation  or  a  Party,  and  even  drag 
us  down  in  your  fall  from  power.  Indeed,  like  Sam- 
son, you  may  throw  down  the  whole  Temple  of  the 
World's  Peace  into  a  cureless  ruin. 

WILSON  [After  long  thought,  marked  by  deep 
emotion}.  I  am  deeply  impressed  by  that  which  you, 
my  dear  colleague,  have  said.  A  new  light  has  come 
to  me.  The  advantages  of  my  coming  to  Paris  have 
already  been  demonstrated  by  this  Conference,  for  you 
have  given  me  a  point  of  view  which  I  lacked  when 
I  sat  alone  in  the  isolation  of  the  White  House,  sur- 
rounded by  flatterers  and  sycophants,  who  "crooked 
the  pregnant  hinges  of  the  knee  that  thrift  might 
follow  fawning." 

This  is  no  time  for  selfish  ambition  or  pride  of 
[132] 


"IT  MIGHT  HAVE  BEEN" 

opinion.  The  safety  of  the  world  is  in  our  keeping, 
and  we  must  leave  nothing  undone  to  bring  about  a 
speedy  and  just  peace  and  the  reconstruction  of  civili- 
zation upon  a  surer  foundation. 

Recognizing  your  just  concern  as  to  the  possible  at- 
titude of  my  Constitutional  partner  in  the  treaty- 
making  power,  I  shall  at  once  cable  an  invitation  to 
Senator  Lodge,  as  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Relations;  to  Senator  Hitchcock,  the  rank- 
ing minority  member;  to  my  illustrious  predecessor, 
ex-President  William  H.  Taft,  who  has  done  so  much 
to  promote  the  League  of  Nations;  and  to  my  distin- 
guished opponent  of  the  last  Presidential  election, 
former  Associate  Justice  Hughes,  and  shall  ask  them 
to  come  to  Paris  as  an  advisory  committee  with  whom 
I  can  confer  from  time  to  time  as  to  what  America, 
without  respect  to  divisions  of  political  opinion,  fairly 
asks.  That  which  I  shall  ask  in  its  name,  with  the 
approval  of  this  advisory  committee,  three  of  whom 
are  distinguished  members  of  the  Republican  Party, 
will  undoubtedly  be  promptly  accepted  by  the  Senate. 

As  I  consider  all  that  you,  my  good  confreres  and 
loyal  allies,  have  said,  I  am  further  deeply  impressed 
with  the  truth  which  my  illustrious  predecessor,  the 
first  President  of  the  United  States,  said  in  his  Fare- 
well Message  to  his  country.  He  strongly  advised 
that  the  permanent  foreign  policy  of  the  United  States 
should  be  marked  by  a  disinclination  to  implicate 
America  "by  artificial  ties  in  the  ordinary  combina- 
tions or  collisions"  of  European  politics.  It  is  now 
clear  to  me  that  in  representing  the  United  States  at 
the  coming  Conference  I  must  bear  in  mind  this  preg- 

[133] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

nant  distinction  between  "extraordinary  emergencies" 
which  concern  all  civilization,  and  the  ordinary  affairs 
of  Europe,  which  are  peculiarly  its  own  concern  and 
with  which  its  statesmen  are  more  competent  to  deal 
than  I  can  possibly  be.  For  this  reason,  I  venture 
to  suggest  that  the  Peace  Conference  shall  first  take  up 
the  peculiarly  local  European  questions  which  require 
adjustment,  such  as  the  control  of  the  Adriatic,  the 
frontier  protection  of  France,  and  all  questions  of 
European  boundaries.  In  these  America  has  no  prac- 
tical interest  and  its  representatives  little  real  knowl- 
edge of  them.  Even  my  thousand  experts  who  have  ac- 
companied me  in  my  formidable  peace  armada  know 
less  of  these  matters  than  one  qualified  European 
expert. 

While  you,  my  confreres,  are  adjusting  these  pecu- 
liarly local  concerns,  I  will  pass  through  your  coun- 
tries bringing  a  message  of  goodwill  from  America, 
and  what  is  far  better,  practical  relief  for  your  starving 
millions.  "With  malice  toward  none,  with  charity  for 
all,  with  firmness  in  the  right,  as  God  gives  us  to  see 
the  right/'  I  will,  in  Lincoln's  spirit  and  with  the  vast 
resources  of  my  country,  bind  up  the  wounds  of  the 
world  and  "care  for  him  who  has  borne  the  battle, 
and  for  his  widow  and  orphan." 

When  you  have  settled  these  peculiarly  European 
questions,  and  the  time  has  come  to  discuss  those  of 
world-wide  concern,  I  shall  then,  as  the  chief  repre^ 
sentative  of  my  great  nation,  venture  to  participate  in 
your  deliberations,  and  with  the  cooperation  of  the 
Senate,  whose  advice  I  shall  fully  consider,  will  make 

[134] 


"IT  MIGHT  HAVE  BEEN" 

every  effort  to  help  in  the  greatest  problem  that  ever 
confronted  the  assembled  statesmen  of  the  world. 

Your  Mr.  Canning,  Mr.  Lloyd  George,  said,  in  sub- 
stance, that  the  Monroe  Doctrine  has  been  called  into 
existence  to  redress  the  ill-adjusted  balance  of  the 
Old  World.  In  a  larger  sense,  America,  if  it  abstain 
from  a  policy  of  meddlesome  interference  in  your  lo- 
cal concerns  and  cooperates  with  you  in  the  larger 
problems  which  concern  all  civilization,  will  so 
redress  the  ill-adjusted  balance  of  civilization  that  an 
equilibrium  of  power,  with  peace  and  justice,  may  be 
established,  to  last,  please  God,  for  many  centuries. 
Thus  we  will,  again  to  quote  the  wise  and  patient 
Lincoln,  "do  all  which  may  achieve  and  cherish  a  just 
and  lasting  peace." 

[CLEMENCEAU,  LLOYD  GEORGE,  and  ORLANDO  rise 
and  grasp  PRESIDENT  WILSON'S  hands.] 

CLEMENCEAU.  In  behalf  of  my  colleagues,  and 
anticipating  the  verdict  of  posterity,  I  acclaim  you  the 
acknowledged  leader  of  the  liberal  forces  of  mankind. 


EPILOGUE 
(Spoken  by  the  Muse  of  History) 

Of  all  sad  words  of  tongue  and  pen, 

The  saddest  are  these,  "It  might  have  been." 

WHITTIER 


[135] 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  APOSTLE   OF   THE   NEW    FREEDOM 

"The  First  Minister  does  not  deserve  pardon  for  the  past, 
applause  for  the  present,  or  confidence  for  the  future."  Gib- 
bon (1778). 

These  words  of  Gibbon,  written  with  reference  to 
another  ambitious  executive,  suggest  an  inquiry,  which 
may  have  occurred  to  those  who  have  read  thus  far, 
as  to  what  extent  the  satire  of  the  two  dialogues, 
which  have  preceded,  is  justified  by  Mr.  Wilson's  per- 
sonality, policies  and  public  utterances. 

Mr.  .Wilson  belongs  to  history  and  is  likely  to  be 
one  of  its  great  enigmas.  The  subtle  complexity  of 
his  personality  does  not  readily  lend  itself  to  analy- 
sis. With  respect  to  his  policies,  men  of  equal  patriot- 
ism and  candor  may  reasonably  differ.  He  has  played 
a  large  part  in  one  of  the  greatest  crises  in  history, 
and  no  full  and  definite  appraisement  of  his  unique 
personality  is  possible  at  this  time.  The  inner  history 
of  his  Administration  remains  to  be  written. 

In  the  earlier  period  of  the  war,  President  Wilson 
spoke  much  of  a  time  of  assessment.  That  time  has 
come.  The  war  happily  ended,  history  is  now  revalu- 
ing personalities  and  events.  That  world-old  assessor, 
to  whose  grim  audit  all  public  men  must  submit,  is 

/ 


THE  APOSTLE  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

now  readjusting  the  individual  ledger  account  of  each 
of  the  great  participants  in  the  most  portentous  reck- 
oning of  history.  Of  all  these  individual  accounts, 
none  is  more  perplexing  than  that  into  which  the 
merits  and  demerits  of  Woodrow  Wilson  are  inscribed 
by  the  great  Appraiser.  Already  the  world  is  con- 
scious of  a  distinct  revaluation  of  that  interesting  and 
complex  personality,  and  it  must  be  sorrowfully  added 
that  this  revaluation  adds  nothing  to  his  prestige. 

There  is  one  portrait  of  Mr.  Wilson  which  is  likely 
to  remain  long  on  the  walls  of  the  great  gallery  of 
history.  It  is  the  pen  picture  by  Mr.  Keynes  in  his 
masterful  book,  "The  Economic  Consequences  of  the 
Peace/ '  whose  publication  approached  the  dignity  of 
an  historical  event. 

Observe  this  stroke  of  his  facile  brush: 

"The  President  was  not  a  hero  or  a  prophet ;  he  was 
not  even  a  philosopher;  but  a  generously  intentioned 
man,  with  many  of  the  weaknesses  of  other  human  be- 
ings, and  lacking  that  dominating  intellectual  equip- 
ment which  would  have  been  necessary  to  cope  with 
the  subtle  and  dangerous  spellbinders  whom  a  tre- 
mendous clash  of  forces  and  personalities  had  brought 
to  the  top  as  triumphant  masters  in  the  swift  game  of 
give  and  take,  face  to  face  in  Council, — a  game  of 
which  he  had  no  experience  at  all."  {Page  39). 

And  this : 

"But  more  serious  than  this,  he  was  not  only  in- 
sensitive to  his  surroundings  in  the  external  sense, 
he  was  not  sensitive  to  his  environment  at  all.  What 
chance  could  such  a  man  have  against  Mr.  Lloyd 
George's  unerring,  almost  medium-like,  sensibility  to 
every  one  immediately  round  him?  .  .  .  Never  could 

[137] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

a  man  have  stepped  into  the  parlor  a  more  perfect  and 
predestined  victim  to  the  finished  accomplishments  of 
the  Prime  Minister.  The  Old  World  was  tough  in 
wickedness  anyhow;  the  Old  World's  heart  of  stone 
might  blunt  the  sharpest  blade  of  the  bravest  knight- 
errant.  But  this  blind  and  deaf  Don  Quixote  was 
entering  a  cavern  where  the  swift  and  glittering  blade 
was  in  the  hands  of  the  adversary."  (Page  41). 

Or  this : 

"He  had  no  plan,  no  scheme,  no  constructive  ideas 
whatever  for  clothing  with  the  flesh  of  life  the  com- 
mandments which  he  had  thundered  from  the  White 
House.  He  could  have  preached  a  sermon  on  any  of 
them  or  have  addressed  a  stately  prayer  to  the  Al- 
mighty for  their  fulfillment;  but  he  could  not  frame 
their  concrete  application  to  the  actual  state  of  Europe. 

"He  not  only  had  no  proposals  in  detail,  but  he  was 
in  many  respects,  perhaps  inevitably,  ill-informed  as  to 
European  conditions.  And  not  only  was  he  ill-in- 
formed— that  was  true  of  Mr.  Lloyd  George  also — 
but  his  mind  was  slow  and  unadaptable.  The  Presi- 
dent's slowness  amongst  the  Europeans  was  note- 
worthy. He  could  not,  all  in  a  minute,  take  in  what 
the  rest  were  saying,  size  up  the  situation  with  a 
glance,  frame  a  reply,  and  meet  the  case  by  a  slight 
change  of  ground;  and  he  was  liable,  therefore,  to 
defeat  by  the  mere  swiftness,  apprehension,  and  agility 
of  a  Lloyd  George.  There  can  seldom  have  been  a 
statesman  of  the  first  rank  more  incompetent  than  the 
President  in  the  agilities  of  the  council  chamber/' 
(Page  43). 

And,  finally,  the  much-quoted  final  stroke  of  a  por- 
trait that  has  captured  the  imagination  of  the  English- 
speaking  world: 


THE  APOSTLE  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

"Now  it  was  that  what  I  have  called  his  theologi- 
cal or  Presbyterian  temperament  became  dangerous. 
Having  decided  that  some  concessions  were  unavoid- 
able, he  might  have  sought  by  firmness  and  address  and 
the  use  of  the  financial  power  of  the  United  States  to 
secure  as  much  as  he  could  of  the  substance,  even  at 
some  sacrifice  of  the  letter.  But  the  President  was  not 
capable  of  so  clear  an  understanding  with  himself  as 
this  implied.  He  was  too  conscientious.  Although 
compromises  were  now  necessary,  he  remained  a  man 
of  principle  and  the  Fourteen  Points  a  contract  abso- 
lutely binding  upon  him.  He  would  do  nothing  that 
was  not  honorable ;  he  would  do  nothing  that  was  not 
just  and  right ;  he  would  do  nothing  that  was  contrary 
to  his  great  profession  of  faith.  .  .  .  After  all,  it  was 
harder  to  de-bamboozle  this  old  Presbyterian  than  it 
had  been  to  bamboozle  him;  for  the  former  involved 
his  belief  in  and  respect  for  himself."  (Pages  50- 
54-55). 

Reduced  to  a  few  lines,  Mr.  Keynes'  portraiture 
of  Mr.  Wilson  amounts  to  this :  that  he  was  a  consci- 
entious idealist,  but  dull  in  his  mental  processes  and 
unequipped  in  knowledge  of  statecraft. 

In  both  respects,  the  portrait  is  misleading.  By 
"conscientious,"  Mr.  Keynes  obviously  means  that  the 
President  has  that  intellectual  integrity  that  would  lead 
him  to  adhere  to  an  opinion  even  if  it  were  a  case  of 
Athanasius  contra  mundum.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Mr. 
Wilson  has  little  of  this  quality.  No  public  man  of 
this  generation  has  been  a  shiftier  opportunist,  or 
has  shown  a  more  acrobatic  facility  in  adapting  his 
views  to  those  passing  expressions  of  popular  opinion 
which  are  euphemistically  styled  "the  voice  of  the 
people."  He  has  changed  his  convictions  time  and 

[139] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

again  with  the  same  startling  rapidity  as  the  Kaiser 
formerly  changed  his  costumes.  He  has  been,  in  his 
public  career,  both  an  extreme  conservative  and  an 
extreme  radical.  His  conservative  views  on  the  main- 
tenance of  our  Constitutional  institutions,  which  he 
once  taught  the  undergraduates  of  Princeton,  he  freely 
disavowed  as  soon  as  he  entered  public  life,  after,  on 
his  first  political  errand  to  the  Pacific  Coast,  he  had 
caught  the  breeze  of  the  new  radicalism  of  the  great 
West. 

He  denounced  the  child-labor  bill  as  unconstitutional, 
and  then  signed  a  bill  which  provided  for  this  un- 
warranted exercise  of  Federal  power. 

While  President  of  Princeton,  he  wrote  a  most  effec- 
tive attack,  in  a  letter  which  has  never  been  published, 
against  the  essential  spirit  of  trades  unionism;  and  yet, 
when  he  entered  public  life,  he  did  not  hesitate  to  form 
a  political  partnership  with  Mr.  Gompers,  the  great 
head  of  the  labor  oligarchy,  and,  to  emphasize  the  fact 
of  this  association  between  the  President  of  the  United 
States  and  the  president  of  the  greatest  labor  organiza- 
tion in  the  world,  he  did  not  hesitate  to  appear  at  the 
annual  meeting  of  the  Federation  and  proclaim  the 
identity  of  his  views  with  those  of  Mr.  Gompers. 

He  thought  that  William  Jennings  Bryan  should  be 
"knocked  into  a  cocked  hat,"  and  then  made  him  his 
Secretary  of  State. 

He  denounced  the  initiative  and  the  referendum 
and  subsequently  accepted  them,  although,  if  adopted, 
they  would  have  gone  far  to  destroy  the  representative 
character  of  our  governmental  institutions.1 

1  See  The  New  Freedom,  pp.  234-245. 
[140] 


THE  APOSTLE  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

i  Similarly,  he  at  first  opposed  women's  suffrage,  and 
later  became  its  most  active  advocate. 

During  the  World  War  his  lightning  changes  were 
such  that  the  Muse  of  History  will  be  afflicted  with 
strabismus  when  she  vainly  tries  to  reconcile  his  contra- 
dictory and  therefore  self -destructive  statements.  Pro- 
claiming that  America  had  no  concern  "with  the  objects 
and  causes  of  the  war,"  and  that  it  was  not  even  "inter- 
ested to  explore  its  obscure  fountains/'  he  nevertheless 
subsequently  proclaimed  a  holy  war  against  Germany 
and  characterized  the  cause  of  the  Allies  as  th?.t  of 
humanity  itself.  If  this  were  true  in  1917,  it  was  not 
less  true  in  1914.  The  invasion  of  Belgium  wr.s  a 
wanton  challenge  to  Civilization.  Mr.  Wilson  ignored 
this  and  never  discovered  the  eternal  righteousness  of 
the  war  until  Germany  had  affronted  him  by  first  using 
him  as  a  diplomatic  catspaw  to  force  a  peace  and  then 
affronted  him  by  an  open  challenge.  Wounded  vanity 
and  not  a  holy  zeal  for  the  basic  principles  of  Civiliza- 
tion induced  Mr.  Wilson  to  recommend  war  to  Con- 
gress. If  the  reader  has  any  doubt  upon  this  point, 
let  him  only  read  Bernstorff's  My  Three  Years  in 
America,  where  the  whole  diplomatic  intrigue  of  1916 
is  set  forth  with  indubitable  evidence. 

If  the  cause  of  the  Allies  were  that  of  America  in 
1918,  it  was  equally  so  in  1914.  The  moral  issues  did 
not  change  in  the  first  years  of  the  conflict.  Mr.  Wilson 
not  only  utilized  all  his  intellectual  powers  in  the  e  rly 
days  of  the  war  to  chloroform  the  conscience  of  t';e 
American  people  into  insensibility;  but,  in  his  Presi- 
dential message  of  1915,  he  openly  denounced  those 
patriotic  Americans  like  Eliot,  Roosevelt,  Robert 


THE  PASSING  OT  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

Bacon,  and  others,  who  were  endeavoring  to  bring  the 
people  of  the  United  States  to  a  realization  that  the 
cause  of  the  Allies  was  not  only  just, — as  to  which 
the  American  people  were  never  in  any  real  doubt — 
but  vitally  concerned  the  welfare  and  honor  of  the 
American  people,  which  they  were  slower  to  realize. 
Having  excoriated,  while  tolerating  by  inaction,  the 
pro-German  aliens  in  America,  who  were  blowing  up 
bridges  and  destroying  munition  plants  and  virtually 
using  America  as  a  base  of  operations  against  the 
Allies,  President  Wilson,  in  his  annual  message  of 
December  7,  1915,  proceeded  to  denounce  the  true 
Americans,  who  clearly  saw  from  the  beginning  that 
which  he  failed  to  see  until  1917.  He  said: 

"There  are  some  men  among  us  and  many  residents 
abroad  who,  though  born  and  bred  in  the  United 
States  and  calling  themselves  Americans,  have  so  far 
forgotten  themselves  and  their  honor  as  citizens  as 
to  put  their  passionate  sympathy  with  one  of  other  side 
in  the  great  European  conflict  above  their  regard  for 
the  peace  and  dignity  of  the  United  States.  They  also 
preach  and  practice  disloyalty.  No  laws,  I  suppose, 
can  reach  corruptions  of  the  mind  and  heart,  but  I 
should  not  speak  of  others  (the  Pan-German  conspira- 
tors on  American  soil)  without  also  speaking  of  these, 
and  expressing  the  even  deeper  humiliation  and  scorn 
which  every  self-possessed  and  thoughtfully  patriotic 
American  must  feel  when  he  thinks  of  these  things 
and  the  discredit  they  are  daily  bringing  upon  us." 

It  is  hard  to  imagine  more  bitter  language  than  this 
indictment  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  of 
true  Americans  who  were  loyally  attempting  to  arouse 
their  countrymen  to  a  sense  of  their  peril  and  their 


THE  APOSTLE  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

common  interest  with  the  cause  of  the  Allies.  To 
speak  of  brave,  patriotic  Americans,  who  as  the  event 
proved,  had  a  vision  where  he  had  none,  as  corrupt 
in  mind  and  heart  passes  the  limits  of  fair  criticism. 
Those  sensitive  Wilson  idolators,  who  resent  any  criti- 
cism of  Mr.  Wilson,  should  remember  that  he  has  at 
times  not  spared  those  who  disagree  with  him  from 
virulent  abuse,  although  he  has  generally  been  free 
from  such  intemperance  in  expression. 

History  has  a  long  memory,  and  notwithstanding 
the  splendor  of  the  achievements  of  the  army  and  navy 
of  the  United  States,  which  came  to  the  relief  of  the 
Allies  at  a  critical  time  under  the  leadership  of  Presi- 
dent Wilson,  it  will  be  impossible  for  posterity  to  re- 
gard him  as  a  hero  and  a  prophet,  when  it  reviews* — 
as,  one  day,  it  will — with  its  acid  test  of  critical  analy- 
sis, the  patchwork  of  contradictory  utterances  and 
actions  which  make  up  the  Wilson  foreign  policy. 

Still  less  defensible  is  Mr.  Keynes*  characterization 
of  Mr.  Wilson  as  a  man  of  slow  mental  processes,  who 
was  fooled  and  misled  by  the  superior  intellects  of 
Clemenceau  and  Lloyd  George. 

Mr.  Wilson  did  not  lack  sagacity.  What  he  lacked 
was  courage  and  disinterestedness.  He  has  one  of  the 
most  acute  minds  in  leading — and  sometimes  mislead- 
ing— people  that  have  appeared  in  the  public  life  of 
America  since  his  great  prototype,  Thomas  Jefferson. 
A  whole  volume  could  be  written  on  the  instructive 
parallel  which  their  two  records  disclose. 

It  is  true  that  Mr.  Wilson's  speeches,  in  their  vague 
nebulosity,  would  seemingly  indicate  muddy  mental 
processes.  But  Mr.  Wilson  has  always  recognized, 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

both  in  the  classrooms  at  Princeton  and  later  in  the 
greater  classroom  of  the  world,  that  there  is,  at  least 
for  a  time,  no  surer  way  to  get  a  reputation  for  wisdom 
than  to  be  obscure.  If  it  is  impossible,  in  reading  his 
many  essays  and  addresses,  to  get  a  clear  idea  as  to 
his  real  meaning,  it  does  not  follow  that  he  himself 
did  not  have  a  very  clear  idea  as  to  the  impression  that 
he  sought  to  convey. 

Dr.  Dillon's  portrait  of  Mr.  Wilson,  which  is  only 
less  popular  in  the  reading  world  than  that  of  Mr. 
Keynes,  is  less  easy  to  state,  because  it  is  scattered  in 
disconnected  sentences  through  his  notable  work  on 
the  Peace  Conference.  His  pen  picture  of  the  President 
has  the  greater  value  as  Dr.  Dillon  approaches  more 
nearly  to  the  former  type  of  the  journalist-ambassador 
than  any  newspaper  publicist  of  our  time  since  Blow- 
itz  wielded  his  enormous  power  a  half  century  ago  as 
the  Paris  correspondent  of  the  London  Times.  It  may 
be  questioned  whether  to-day  there  is  a  more  acute 
student  of  international  affairs.  His  impeachment  of 
Mr.  Wilson's  course  at  the  Paris  Conference  is  largely 
an  indictment  of  his  moral  courage;  and  in  this  view 
he  is  joined  by  the  intellectual  radicals  of  the  New 
Republic  type  who  first  surrounded  Mr.  Wilson  in 
Paris,  and  later  deserted  him.  Dr.  Dillon's  estimate 
can  best  be  summarized  by  the  following  passage  from 
his  work: 

"Thus  Mr.  Wilson  had  become  a  transcendental  hero 
to  the  European  proletarians,  who  in  their  homely  way 
adjusted  his  mental  and  moral  attributes  to  their  own 
ideal  of  the  latter-day  Messiah.  His  legendary  figure, 
half  saint,  half  revolutionist,  emerged  from  the  trans- 

[H4] 


THE  APOSTLE  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

parent  haze  of  faith,  yearning  and  ignorance,  as  in 
some  ecstatic  vision.  In  spite  of  his  recorded  acts  and 
utterances  the  mythopeic  faculty  of  the  peoples  had 
given  itself  free  scope  and  created  a  messianic  demo- 
crat destined  to  free  the  lower  orders,  as  they  were 
called,  in  each  state  from  the  shackles  of  capitalism, 
legalized  thraldom  and  crushing  taxation,  and  each 
nation  from  sanguinary  warfare.  Truly,  no  human 
being  since  the  dawn  of  history  has  ever  yet  been 
favored  with  such  a  superb  opportunity.  Mr.  Wilson 
might  have  made  a  gallant  effort  to  lift  society  out  of 
the  deep  grooves  into  which  it  had  sunk,  and  dislodge 
the  secular  obstacles  to  the  enfranchisement  and  trans- 
figuration of  the  human  race.  At  the  lowest,  it  was 
open  to  him  to  become  the  center  of  a  countless  multi- 
tude, the  heart  of  their  hearts,  the  incarnation  of  their 
noblest  thought,  on  condition  that  he  scorned  the 
prudential  motives  of  politicians,  burst  through  the 
barriers  of  the  old  order,  and  deployed  all  his  energies 
and  his  full  will-power  in  the  struggle  against  sordid 
interests  and  dense  prejudice.  But  he  was  cowed  by 
obstacles  which  his  will  lacked  the  strength  to  swr- 
mount,  and  instead  of  receiving  his  promptings  from 
the  everlasting  ideals  of  mankind  and  the  inspiriting 
audacities  of  his  own  highest  nature  and  appealing  to 
the  peoples  against  their  rulers,  he  fety  constrained  in 
the  very  interest  of  his  cause  to  haggle  and  barter  with 
the  Scribes  and  the  Pharisees,  and  ended  by  recording 
a  pitiful  answer  to  the  most  momentous  problems 
couched  in  the  impoverished  phraseology  of  a  political 
party."  (Pages  94~95)- 

In  effect,  Dr.  Dillon  charges  the  President  with 
moral  cowardice.  I  cannot  accept  this  estimate. 

Mr.  Wilson's  harshest  critic  cannot  fairly  deny  him 
the  courageous  aggressiveness  of  a  fighter.  He  has 
been  the  storm  center  of  one  of  the  most  acute  con- 

[145] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

troversies  that  ever  raged  in  the  political  annals  of 
America.  He  has  fought  his  battles  almost  alone.  If 
he  has  never  given  quarter,  he  has  never  asked  any. 
He  has  taken  blows  like  Csesar,  standing  up,  and  never 
an  "et  tu  Brute"  has  come  from  his  embattled  soul. 
In  all  the  controversy  that  has  raged  about  his  merits 
or  demerits,  I  cannot  recall  an  ignoble  whine  or  com- 
plaint when  the  lance  of  his  adversary  rang  against  his 
shield.  Assuredly  he  has  not  been  a  coward.  In  mili- 
tant aggressiveness,  though  not  in  moral  sincerity,  he 
has  "stood  four-square  to  every  wind  that  blew,"  and 
as  he  is  now  happily  recovering  from  a  distressing  ail- 
ment, in  which  he  has  had  the  sympathy  of  all  Ameri- 
cans of  all  parties  and  classes,  it  can  easily  be  predicted 
that,  with  his  facile  pen  and  vigorous  mind,  he  will 
hereafter  argue  his  own  case  at  the  bar  of  history  with 
telling  power.  Whatever  else  he  may  do,  his  proud 
and  imperious  spirit  will  not  weaken. 

While  we  are  adverting  to  one  of  the  great  credits 
in  his  individual  account  on  the  great  ledger  of  history, 
let  me  digress  to  say  that  another  very  admirable  trait 
of  President  Wilson  is  the  dignity  with  which  he  has 
played  his  great  role  on  the  boards  of  the  world's 
theater. 

Before  he  became  President,  the  growth  of  the  demo- 
cratic spirit  in  America  had  led  to  the  mistaken  con- 
vention that  a  President  should  affect  an  air  of  breezy 
sociability  with  his  fellow-citizens. 

Mr.  Wilson  ignored  this  convention,  even  to  the 
point  of  winning  a  reputation  of  being  cold  in  tem- 
perament. He  ended  the  meaningless  and  at  times 
dangerous  public  receptions  at  the  White  House.  He 


THE  APOSTLE  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

saw  only  those  who  had  legitimate  business  with  the 
Executive,  and  unfortunately  only  too  few  of  them. 
No  President  since  Washington  ever  so  wholly  with- 
drew himself  from  contact  with  the  people,  and  no 
American  President  of  recent  times  has  made  a  less 
bid  to  popularity  through  the  methods  to  which  I  have 
referred.  Neither  in  Washington,  London,  Paris,  nor 
Rome  can  any  one  recall  a  single  instance  in  which 
the  President  was  not  conscious  that  he  was  the  Chief 
Magistrate  of  the  greatest  republic  that  the  world  has 
ever  known. 

In  this  respect,  he  resembles  Alexander  Hamilton 
far  more  than  Thomas  Jefferson. 

A  Dr.  Joseph  Collins  has  given  in  the  North  Amer- 
ican Review  of  May,  1920,  another  portrait  of  Mr. 
Wilson  which  has  attracted  widespread  attention.  It 
is  the  criticism  of  a  psychiatrist.  With  the  cold  poise 
of  the  surgeon,  he  has  placed  Mr.  Wilson's  moral 
personality  on  the  operating  table  and  has  ventured 
to  dissect  it  in  the  eyes  of  all  men.  His  characteriza- 
tion may  be  summed  up  in  his  statement  that  Mr. 
Wilson  "has  the  mind  of  Jove  but  the  heart  of  a 
Batrachian." 

Both  tribute  and  invective  are  as  inaccurate  as  Mr. 
Keynes'  characterization.  Indeed,  Dr.  Collins'  clas- 
sical analogy  is  unfortunate;  for  Jove  was  not  dis- 
tinguished among  the  Olympian  deities  for  his  intel- 
lectual character.  His  activities  were  more  frivolous. 
To  the  Greeks,  Minerva  was  the  deification  of  wis- 
dom, as  was  Mercury  of  nimble  wit.  However,  ac- 
cepting the  analogy  as  Dr.  Collins  intended  it,  as 
suggesting  an  Olympian  brain,  I  venture  to  say  that 

[147] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

Mr.  Wilson  has  given  no  evidence  of  it.  The  author 
has  read  most  of  his  essays  and  addresses,  and  has  yet 
to  find  one  acute  or  profound  observation.  He  has  a 
faculty  of  clothing  moral  commonplaces  in  suave  but 
obscure  words.  Even  from  the  standpoint  of  finished 
diction,  Mr.  Wilson's  literary  product  leaves  much  to 
be  desired,  although  the  suavity  of  his  phrases  has 
blinded  many  to  the  fact.  I  have  seen  a  portion  of  one 
of  Mr.  Wilson's  addresses  to  Congress  subjected  to 
the  critical  analysis  of  a  master  of  rhetoric  in  one  of 
the  leading  universities  of  America,  and  the  effect 
was  not  favorable  to  the  purity  of  Mr.  Wilson's 
English. 

Dr.  Collins  is  so  indiscriminate,  both  in  his  praise 
and  censure  of  Mr.  Wilson,  as  to  suggest  the  possibility 
that,  in  his  clinical  dissection,  two  operating  surgeons 
were  at  work.  The  first  half  of  the  criticism  seems  to 
be  written  by  one  of  Mr.  Wilson's  fervent  admirers, 
while  the  second  half  suggests  the  spirit  of  an  invet- 
erate enemy. 

Thus,  in  the  first  part  of  the  article,  we  are  advised 
that,  in  the  world  crisis,  Mr.  Wilson's  sagacity  was 
greater  than  that  of  "all  the  Solons  of  America  put 
together."  This  will  surprise  the  student  of  contempo- 
rary politics  when  he  reflects  that  at  no  time  during  the 
crisis  did  Mr.  Wilson  have  a  really  sagacious  view  of 
its  nature.  From  the  beginning  to  the  end  he  was  in- 
variably behind  the  march  of  events  and  of  public 
opinion.  It  is  to  his  credit  that  he  profited  by  his  own 
blunders;  but  every  wise  thing  he  did  was  only  after 
a  policy  of  fatuous  "watchful  waiting."  He  rarely 
recognized  his  errors  and  made  a  new  and  better  de- 

[148] 


THE  APOSTLE  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

parture  in  his  policies  until  he  had  been  lashed  by  the 
whip  of  an  angry  public  opinion.  There  were  doubtless 
many  who  did  not  see  the  enormous  stake  which 
America  had  in  the  righteous  result  of  the  world  con- 
flict. But  no  one  was  slower  in  his  appreciation  of  the 
fact  than  Mr.  Wilson.  He  did  not  lead  his  people  into 
the  war;  but  the  will  of  the  people,  aided  by  the  in- 
credible stupidity  of  the  German  Government,  drove 
Mr.  Wilson  very  tardily  into  a  policy  of  action  in  the 
eleventh  hour  of  the  crisis.  A  little  more  delay,  and 
the  world  war  would  probably  have  been  lost,  and,  in 
that  event,  Mr.  Wilson  would  have  become  a  "figure 
for  the  time  of  scorn  to  point  his  slow  unmoving  finger 
at." 

Again  Dr.  Collins,  in  the  earlier  part  of  his  article, 
tells  us  that  Mr.  Wilson  is  "an  idealist  and  a  theorist," 
and  then  adds  that  he  "has  done  more  to  make  our 
government  a  republican  government  representative  of 
the  people  and  not  of  the  party  bosses,  than  any  one 
in  the  memory  of  man." 

This  suggests  the  possibility  that  Dr.  Collins  knows 
more  of  medicine  tha,n  he  does  of  contemporary  poli- 
tics; for  "who,  to  dumb  forgetfulness  a  prey,"  can 
ignore  the  fact  that  Mr.  Wilson  concentrated  in  him- 
self a  one-man  power  which  has  never  had  a  parallel 
in  American  politics  since  the  imperious  reign  of 
Andrew  Jackson?  He  may  have  destroyed  some  party 
bosses,  but  it  was  only  to  concentrate  their  power  not 
in  ^  the  people  but  in  himself.  No  such  autocrat  ever 
sat  in  the  White  House.  To  differ  with  him  was  to 
invite  political  destruction. 

Having  exhausted  the  language  of  eulogy,  Dr.  Col- 
[149] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

lins  then  makes  a  surprising  turn  by  telling  us  that  his 
scalpel  discloses  that  the  defect  in  Mr.  Wilson's  person- 
ality is  "temperamental."  We  are  told  that  Mr.  Wil- 
son does  not  love  his  fellow  man  and  that  "selfishness 
is  another  conspicuously  deforming  trait  of  the  Presi- 
•dent.  He  is  more  selfish  than  cruel  ...  He  is  un- 
generous by  sentiment,  and  unfair  by  implication." 

In  other  words — to  repeat  the  learned  physician's 
disrespectful  analogy — Mr.  Wilson,  while  having  "the 
brain  of  Jove,  has  the  soul  of  a  Batrachian." 
j,  To  Dr.  Collins'  praise  and  censure  I  equally  dissent. 
Mr.  Wilson  has  a  clear  brain,  but  not  a  profound  one. 
He  has  great  versatility,  but  no  culture  above  that  of 
the  average  student  of  affairs.  He  has  an  effective  gift 
•of  expression,  without  purity  of  diction.  He  is  equally 
a  poor  judge  of  both  men  and  events.  The  former,  no 
one  would  dispute ;  the  latter,  history,  which  has  a  long 
memory,  will  adjudge.  Far  from  having  the  soul  of  a 
Batrachian,  he  is  a  man  of  the  same  mold  as  all  of  us. 
He  has  eyes,  a  tongue,  affections,  dimensions,  passions. 
He  is  not  more  selfish  than  most  of  the  public  men  of 
our  past  history.  A  pure,  unselfish  spirit,  like  those  of 
Washington  and  Lincoln,  is  rare  indeed.  For  the  rest, 
nearly  all  the  men  who  have  been  distinguished  in  the 
annals  of  the  United  States  have  been  men  who  pur- 
sued the  policy  of  personal  success.  He  only  differs 
with  them  in  his  remorseless  indifference  to  the  con- 
ventions of  a  democracy.  He  is  not  a  cold  Batrachian. 
Warm  blood  courses  through  his  veins,  and  he  loves 
and  hates  with  equal  intensity.  No  one  can  be  more 
gracious  and  kindly,  and,  in  the  calm  indifference  with 
which  he  has  generally  ignored  the  attacks  of  his  ad- 

[150] 


THE  APOSTLE  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

versaries,  is  shown  a  fine  magnanimity  in  the  original 
sense  of  the  word.  The  leading  statesmen  of  Europe, 
many  of  whom  deprecated  his  coming  to  Paris,  were 
carried  away  with  the  grace  of  his  personality.  Dig- 
nified in  manner  as  though  born  to  the  purple,  with 
a  fine  intellectual  power  which  captivated  the  keen 
critics  of  the  Old  World,  the  President  unquestionably 
made  a  deep  impression  when  he  first  went  to  Europe 
and  became,  by  the  sheer  force  of  his  personality,  a 
leading — if  not  the  leading — figure  of  the  greatest 
peace  conference  in  the  annals  of  mankind.  He  may 
have  few  friends;  but  he  cares  for  few.  In  social  life, 
as  in  political  life,  he  prefers  to  play  a  lone  hand. 

To  my  mind,  one  of  the  most  acute  analyses  of  Mr. 
Wilson  and  a  far  better  portrait  of  a  complex  per- 
sonality than  those  of  Keynes,  Dillon  and  Dr.  Collins, 
is  that  of  Mr.  H.  H.  Powers,  as  published  in  the 
Boston  Evening  Transcript  of  January  6,  1920: 

Mr.  Wilson's  mind  is  singularly  lacking  in  power 
of  analysis  and  in  feeling  for  the  concrete.  On  the 
other  hand  he  is  credited  by  many  with  rare  powers  of 
generalization.  This  faculty,  however,  is  peculiar. 
His  generalizations  are  not  of  a  kind  that  are  valued 
in  science.  They  are  aesthetic  and  literary  rather  than 
scientific.  Apt  in  their  phrasing  and  taking  in  their 
original  appeal,  they  are  nebulous  and  when  subjected 
to  scientific  tests,  they  yield  little  in  the  way  of  posi- 
tive content.  These  literary  generalizations  abound  in 
his  writings,  not  only  in  those  of  recent  date,  but  in 
the  publications  of  his  academic  period.  A  sympathetic 
reviewer  some  twenty  years  ago  noted  his  inability  to 
concrete  his  propositions  and  subject  them  to  the  test 
of  reality.  President  Lowell  ten  years  ago,  at  that 
time  professor  of  Government  in  Harvard,  instanced 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

Wilson's  books  to  his  classes  as  examples  of  how  not 
to  treat  the  subject. 

This  explains  Mr.  Wilson's  helplessness  and  irrita- 
tion when  cross  questioned  and  challenged  to  explain 
more  exactly  what  his  proposals  mean  and  how  they 
would  work  out  in  practice.  Thus  put  to  the  test,  he 
is  one  of  the  most  helpless  of  mortals,  and  since  his 
own  mind  never  compels  him  to  be  explicit  and  con- 
crete, he  quite  naturally  regards  such  demands  on  the 
part  of  others  as  captious  and  intended  for  his  em- 
barrassment. With  a  wise  instinct  he  avoids  these 
encounters.  .  .  . 

I  have  insisted  upon  this  fundamental  characteristic 
of  Mr.  Wilson's  mind  because  it  is  the  key  to  his 
whole  undertaking.  It  is  in  such  a  mind,  exuberant  but 
uncritical  and  but  feebly  conscious  of  the  obstinate 
eccentricities  of  fact,  that  germinate  those  fantasies 
which  men  sometimes  dignify  by  the  inappropriate 
name  of  ideals.  Such  minds  are  not  weak  nor  yet 
without  value.  The  faculty  of  literary  generalization 
and  emotional  appeal  may  be  both  very  great  and  very 
useful.  But  it  is  a  faculty  that  is  peculiarly  unsuited 
to  tasks  of  practical  administration  and  statesmanship. 
It  is  valuable  primarily  as  stimulating  suggestion,  and 
under  conditions  of  comparative  detachment  from 
practical  situations. 

There  are  those  who  see  in  Woodrow  Wilson  the 
most  dangerous  man  whom  accident  ever  elevated  to 
high  position  in  the  United  States.  This  is  preposter- 
ous flattery.  Were  he  able  to  work  his  will,  such  a 
judgment  would  be  justified.  But  no  man  so  weak  in 
practical  detail,  so  restive  of  opposition  and  delay,  so 
incapable  of  using  competent  instruments,  so  lacking 
in  elementary  courtesy  and  tact,  above  all,  no  man  with 
such  a  genius  for  antagonism,  will  ever  jeopardize  the 
liberties  of  the  American  people.  His  power  to  cause 
us  temporary  embarrassment,  to  obstruct  world  re- 
organization, and  to  prolong  the  world's  misery,  is 


THE  APOSTLE  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

beyond  question.  A  million  lives  are  on  his  conscience 
as  the  toll  of  this  blackened  year.  But  all  this  means 
reaction  and  the  reassertion  of  those  rights  and  those 
saving  principles  which  we  have  incautiously  allowed 
him  briefly  to  contravene.  His  amazing  ineptitude  is 
our  salvation. 

In  the  author's  opinion,  this  describes  Mr.  Wilson's 
metaphysical  limitations  to  a  nicety.  It  is,  however, 
like  all  portraits,  only  one  aspect  of  his  subject.  It 
fails  to  take  in  account,  as  I  shall  hereafter  endeavor 
to  show,  the  moral  defect  in  his  complex  character, 
which  aggravated  this  intellectual  inability  to  see  con- 
cretely. 

It  will  be  noted  that  these  four  estimates  of  trained 
observers  present,  in  a  composite  form,  a  very  unfa- 
vorable portrait  of  President  Wilson. 

William  E.  Dodd,  Professor  of  History  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Chicago,  has  come  to  the  aid  of  the  Presi- 
dent's reputation  by  a  book  entitled  "Woodrow  Wilson 
and  His  Work,"  which,  as  an  indiscriminate  eulogy, 
has  not  been  surpassed  since  J.  S.  C.  Abbott,  a  genera- 
tion ago,  clothed  Napoleon  in  the  robe  of  a  holy  saint 
and  crowned  him  with  a  sacred  nimbus. 

He  attempts  no  real  analysis  of  this  complex  char- 
acter, but  contents  himself  with  a  review  of  the  epoch- 
making  events  of  the  last  five  years,  all  of  which,  in 
Dr.  Dodd's  opinion,  have  been  due  to  the  superhuman 
sagacity  of  the  President.  Mr.  Wilson's  contradictory 
statements  or  acts  do  not  for  one  moment  appall  the 
learned  professor,  whose  function — judged  by  this 
book — should  not  be  the  teaching  of  history.  As  Ig- 
natius Donnelly  found  a  connected  autobiography  in 

[153] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

the  plays  of  Shakespeare,  written  by  the  Master  in 
cipher  and  woven  into  the  First  Folio,  without  taking 
into  account  the  fact  that  these  plays  were  published 
by  his  fellow  actors  after  his  death  and  in  such  order 
as  they  pleased,  with  equal  folly  Dr.  Dodd  finds  in  the 
contradictory  policies  of  Mr.  Wilson  a  consistent  in- 
tention to  do  that  which,  under  the  spur  of  necessity, 
he  finally  did  do.  If  Dr.  Dodd's  theory  is  to  be  car- 
ried to  its  logical  conclusion  then  the  chaos  in  which 
the  world  now  finds  itself,  largely  through  Mr.  Wil- 
son's pretentious  but  blundering  statecraft,  was  also  a 
part  of  the  same  original  purpose — a  conclusion  from 
which  obviously  the  Chicago  professor,  as  a  Wilson 
idolater,  would  shrink. 

His  final  estimate  of  Mr.  Wilson  can  be  summarized 
in  the  concluding  sentences  of  his  book: 

"Never  robust  in  health,  he  entered  office  already 
overworked.  But  he  spared  not  himself,  challenged 
Congress  and  all  public  officials  to  keep  his  pace,  and 
quickly  stirred  the  whole  country  to  new  conceptions 
of  public  duty.  The  tone  of  public  life  was  lifted  to 
a  high  plane.  What  he  said  and  did  in  those  excitine 
and  sometimes  awful  years  must  ever  remain  a  heritage 
of  the  people.  Unless  Democracy  itself  should  fail, 
he  will  be  read  and  quoted  hundreds  of  years  from 
now,  as  Jefferson  and  Lincoln  are  read  and  quoted 
now.  It  is  surely  a  record  unsurpassed ;  and  the  fame 
of  the  man  who  now  lies  ill  in  the  White  House  can 
never  be  forgotten,  the  ideals  he  has  set  and  the  move- 
ment he  has  pressed  so  long  and  so  ably  can  not  fail. 
It  is  a  compelling,  almost  a  tragic,  story." 

Dr.  Dodd's  indiscriminating  eulogy  hardly  justifies 
comment.  It  belongs  to  the  per  fervid  literature  of  a 

[154] 


THE  APOSTLE  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

political  campaign.  Mr.  Wilson  never  stirred  his  coun- 
trymen "to  new  conceptions  of  public  duty."  He  did 
much  to  chloroform  the  American  conscience  into  in- 
sensibility, by  upholding  as  long  as  possible  the  "too 
proud  to  fight"  doctrine,  but  his  chief  purpose  by  subtle 
appeals  was  to  inflame  the  passions  of  the  masses 
against  the  so-called  classes.  He  has  lowered  the  tone 
of  our  public  life.  When  he  retires  from  his  high 
office,  he  leaves  behind  him  the  deluge  of  class  passion. 
His  passionate  utterances  may  be  quoted  centuries 
from  now — I  doubt  it — but  if  so,  they  will  be  re- 
garded as  other  vaporings  of  ambitious  men,  who 
sought  to  revolutionize  American  ideals  in  favor  of 
a  so-called  "New  Freedom."  I  venture  to  predict  that 
he  will  be  regarded  by  posterity  as  the  most  dangerous 
and  destructive  leader  who  has  sat  in  the  White  House 
since  Jackson.  Time  will  tell. 

I  cannot  leave  these  pen  portraits  of  a  great  per- 
sonality without  briefly  referring  to  one  drawn  by  a 
not  unfriendly  pen.  I  refer  to  Count  von  BernstorfFs 
estimate  of  him  in  the  German  Ambassador's  apologia, 
entitled  "My  Three  Years  in  America."  It  is  true  that 
his  post  factum  comments  will  be  read  in  America 
with  little  disposition  to  believe  anything  that  this 
shrewd  diplomat  says.  German  diplomacy  was  as  un- 
truthful as  it  was  unscrupulous.  It  now  suffers  from 
the  fate  that  always  attends  the  liar.  But  von  Bern- 
storff  quotes  at  length  his  contemporaneous  cipher 
dispatches  to  his  Foreign  Office  and  it  is  incredible  that 
these  can  be  forged.  Here,  then,  are  res  gestce,  and 
as  such  convincing  evidence  of  this  shrewd  diplomat's 
real  estimate  of  Mr.  Wilson.  He  had  full  opportunity 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

to  judge  him,  for  it  is  a  humiliating  fact  that  the  doors 
of  the  White  House,  which  in  1916  were  generally 
closed  to  the  British  and  French  ambassadors,  were 
open  to  Bernstorff,  who  directly — or  indirectly  through 
Colonel  House — was  in  constant  communication  with 
the  President.  The  story  thus  told  will,  when  it  is 
fully  understood  by  the  American  people,  constitute 
one  of  the  most  humiliating  chapters  of  America's 
diplomatic  history.  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  at  the  very 
time  that  Mr.  Wilson  was  professing  an  honest  neu- 
trality, he  was  discus3ing — generally  through  Colonel 
House,  as  his  alter  ego — a  plan  of  intervention  which 
would  inevitably  have  brought  the  sacrifices  of  the 
Allies  to  nought  by  forcing  a  compromise  peace  by 
American  intervention. 

BernstorfFs  estimate  may  be  summed  up  in  the  one 
word,  which  he  uses,  that  Mr.  Wilson  was  "egocen- 
tric." Throughout  the  world  crisis  he  saw  all  prob- 
lems in  their  effect  upon  his  own  prestige.  The  noble 
unselfishness  of  Lincoln  was  wholly  wanting.  His 
vanity — with  which  at  first  he  aspired  to  be  the  Peace 
Dictator — later,  when  wounded  by  Germany's  unex- 
pected cancellation  of  its  promises  to  him,  played  a 
large  part  in  determining  his  policies.  As  Bernstorff 
well  says: 

"Truth  to  tell,  if  Mr.  Wilson  had  really  been  striv- 
ing to  declare  war  against  us,  he  would,  of  course,  only 
have  needed  to  nod  in  order  to  induce  his  whole  coun- 
try to  fight  after  the  Lusitania  incident,  so  great  was 
the  war  feeling  at  that  critical  time.  Later  on,  the 
President  concentrated  all  his  efforts  upon  the  idea 
of  being  the  Peacemaker  of  the  world,  and  even  made 


THE  APOSTLE  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

such  prominent  use  of  the  motto  'He  kept  us  out  of 
war'  in  the  campaign  for  his  reelection,  that  it  is  quite 
unthinkable  that  all  this  time  he  should  have  secretly 
cherished  the  intention  ultimately  to  enter  the  war 
against  Germany.  In  this  matter,  the  fact  that  after 
the  rupture  of  diplomatic  relations  between  America 
and  Germany,  Mr.  Wilson  really  did  urge  war  by 
every  means  in  his  power,  proves  nothing.  For  after 
January  31,  1917,  Wilson  himself  was  a  different  man. 
Our  rejection  of  his  proposal  to  mediate,  by  our  an« 
nouncement  of  the  unrestricted  U-boat  warfare,  turned 
him  into  an  embittered  enemy  of  the  Imperial  Gov- 
ernment" 

I  cannot  quote  at  length  from  this  remarkable  book, 
but  I  commend  it  to  the  Dr.  Dodds,  and  other  Wilson 
idolaters,  as  illuminating  evidence  as  the  character  of ' 
Mr.  Wilson's  "neutrality"  in  1915-16,  when  he  was 
striving  to  bring  about  a  Peace  Conference,  which 
would  give  a  "Peace  without  Victory,"  and  thus  make 
of  no  avail  for  the  redemption  of  the  world  the  sac- 
rifice of  all  the  brave  men  who  had  died  on  the  Marne, 
on  the  Yser,  and  on  the  Meuse.  Such  a  peace,  when 
Germany  at  the  Peace  Table  could  still  have  rattled 
its  Prussian  sabre,  would  have  been  a  moral  vacuum, 
and  God  abhors  a  vacuum. 

Without  attempting  to  draw  my  own  portrait  of 
Mr.  Wilson,  and  freely  recognizing  that  no  one  now 
can  "pluck  out  the  heart  of  his  mystery,"  let  me  state 
that  which  I  believe  to  be  the  dominant  characteristic 
that  at  first  led  to  his  unexampled  success,  and  then 
culminated  in  his  equally  unexampled  failure. 

While  I  have  attempted  to  indicate  this  defect  in 

[157] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

the  two  dialogues  which  I  am  now  publishing,  yet, 
acting  as  my  own  Greek  chorus  to  two  very  un-Greek 
playlets,  I  venture  to  state  it  in  a  more  formal  way. 

In  the  tragedy  of  Hamlet,  the  keynote  was  struck 
by  the  master  dramatist  in  a  sentence  in  the  first  act, 
to  which  the  students  of  Hamlet  have  given  too  little 
attention.  Commenting  upon  one  defect  in  the  Danish 
character,  Hamlet  utters  a  philosophic  truth  by  say- 
ing that  there  are  "particular  men/'  who 

"Carrying,  I  say,  the  stamp  of  one  defect, 
Being  nature's  livery,  or  fortune's  star, — 
Their  virtues  else — be  they  as  pure  as  grace, 
As  infinite  as  man  may  undergo — 
Shall  in  the  general  censure  take  corruption 
From  that  particular  fault;  the  dram  of  eale 
Doth  all  the  noble  substance  of  a  doubt.1 
To  his  own  scandal." 

Uipon  no  moral  truth  did  Shakespeare,  in  his  clinical 
studies  of  human  nature,  dwell  with  greater  or  more 
telling  insistence  "than  upon  the  destructive  power  of 
a  single  fault.  Hamlet  himself,  Shylock  and  Macbeth, 
are  familiar  illustrations. 

The  most  striking  instance,  however,  of  this  truth 
in  Shakespeare's  clinical  studies  was  Mallvolio.  It  is 
"passing  strange"  that  this  essentially  tragic  figure 
should  be  regarded  as  the  mere  vehicle  for  comedy. 
In  the  essential  dignity  of  manhood,  Malvolio  was  a 
finer  man  than  the  languid  lovers  of  the  Orsino  type 
or  the  boisterous  roisterers  of  the  Sir  Toby  type.  He 
was  obviously  a  man  of  fine  intelligence,  great  dignity, 

1The  slip  of  an  Elizabethan  compositor.  One  good  emenda- 
tion for  the  italicized  words  would  be  "oft  adulter." 

[158] 


THE  APOSTLE  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

and  an  admirable  and  conscientious  administrator.  His 
gracious  mistress,  Olivia,  who  thoroughly  understood 
him  and  appreciated  his  faithful  stewardship  and  ad- 
mirable qualities  as  a  man,  fully  understood  her  stew- 
ard's "dram  of  eale."  She  says: 

"O,  you  are  sick  of  self-love,  Malvolio,  and  taste 
with  a  distempered  appetite.  To  be  generous,  guiltless 
and  of  free  disposition,  is  to  take  those  things  for 
bird-bolts  that  you  deem  cannon-bullets." 

Maria  said  of  him  that  he  was,  at  times,  "a  kind  of 
Puritan."  But,  with  fine  judgment,  she  thus  distin- 
guished between  the  austerity  of  his  Puritan  nature 
and  the  essential  defect  in  his  character : 

'The  devil  a  puritan  that  he  is,  or  any  thing  con- 
stantly, but  a  time-pleaser;  .  .  .  that  cons  state  with- 
out book  and  utters  it  by  great  swarths:  the  best  per- 
suaded of  himself,  so  crammed,  as  he  thinks,  with 
excellencies,  that  it  is  his  grounds  of  faith  that  all 
look  on  him  love  him" 

There  is  much  of  Malvolio  in  President  Wilson.  The 
yellow  stockings  which  he  put  on  to  attract  the  atten- 
tion of  civilization  was  a  world  diplomacy  for  which 
he  had,  in  fact,  very  little  aptitude.  With  one  leg 
cross-gartered  by  the  Fourteen  Points  and  the  other 
with  the  League  of  Nations,  and  with  the  forced  smile 
which  became  known  as  the  "Wilson  smile,"  he  trod, 
for  a  little  time,  the  great  stage  of  the  world,  only  to 
find  that  his  yellow  stockings  were  not  popular  and 
that  his  Fourteen  Points  and  League  of  Nations,  in- 
stead of  winning  him  the  admiring  favor  of  mankind, 
had  cost  him  the  leadership  of  civilization. 

[159] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

Even  in  the  denouement  of  the  two  tragic-comedies, 
there  is  a  striking  parallel  between  the  fate  of  Malvo- 
lio  and  that  of  Wilson.  The  latter  had  persuaded  his 
associates  in  Paris,  very  much  against  their  will,  that 
America  would  accept  the  League  of  Nations  which  he 
inopportunely  forced  upon  them.  Notwithstanding 
thrice-repeated  warnings  from  the  representatives  of  a 
majority  of  the  American  people,  the  European  states- 
men blindly  accepted  the  assurance  of  Mr.  Wilson  and 
incorporated  the  fatal  Covenant  in  the  Peace  Treaty. 
When  it  was  seen  that  Wilson's  real  control  of  the 
American  people  was  as  weak  as  that  of  Mali/olio  upon 
the  affections  of  his  fair  mistress,  the  European  states- 
men, who  cared  little  for  the  League  of  Nations  but 
very  much  for  America's  participation  in  the  European 
settlement,  implored  him  to  accept  the  Covenant  with 
such  reservations  as  a  majority  of  the  Senate  demand- 
ed. 1  Lord  Grey  was  sent  to  America  on  a  special  mis- 
sion to  advise  the  President  of  the  fact  that  England 
would  accept  the  American  reservations;  but,  though 
he  waited  for  months,  he  did  not  receive  an  audience, 
and  was  obliged  to  interpret  the  views  of  his  govern- 
ment on  his  return  to  England  in  a  letter  to  the  London 
Times.  The  French  Ambassador  had  a  like  experi- 
ence. President  Wilson's  closest  friends  and  most 
faithful  party  associates  implored  him,  in  order  to  save 
the  Treaty,  to  accept  the  suggestion  of  his  associates 
in  Paris  and  permit  the  ratification  of  the  Treaty  with 
the  saving  reservations. 

1  While  giving  the  proofs  of  this  book  a  final  revision  in 
London,  I  attended  a  much  heralded  debate  in  the  House  of 
Lords  on  the  League  of  Nations.  There  were  less  than  fifteen 
peers  present.  The  rest  had  gone  to  the  King's  Garden  party. 
Such  was  the  interest  in  the  League  of  Nations! 

[160] 


THE  APOSTLE  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

All  was  to  no  purpose.  Malvolio  was  not  more  un- 
yielding in  his  implacable  opposition  than  President 
Wilson  to  any  modification  of  his  Covenant.  Like 
Malvolio ,  because  he  was  virtuous,  there  could  be  no 
ale  or  cake  for  civilization.  The  result  was  inevitable. 
The  Covenant  was  rejected  and,  with  it,  the  Treaty. 
Wilson's  refusal  to  friend  and  foe  to  accept  anything 
less  than  the  Covenant,  which  unstatesmanlike  hodge- 
podge the  common  sense  of  mankind  had  already  re- 
jected, is  most  suggestive  in  its  obstinate  character 
of  the  last  words  with  which  Malvolio  makes  his  exit : 
"I'll  be  revenged  on  the  whole  pack  of  you." 
Wilson  and  Malvolio  are  alike  in  the  fact  that  they 
were  both  unconscious  poseurs.  The  word  "uncon- 
scious" is  used  advisedly,  for  each  of  them  deceived 
himself  more  than  he  deceived  the  world.  Psychology 
increasingly  emphasizes  man's  subconscious  self,  whose 
reasoning  and  impulses  slowly  infiltrate  the  conscious 
self  without  the  latter's  recognition.  Mr.  Wilson  could 
deny  with  entire  sincerity  that  his  public  utterances  and 
actions  were  often  mere  poses,  but  he  is  not  the  first 
man  to  be  thus  the  victim  of  self-deception.  A  man 
may  be  a  poseur  or  actor  quite  unconsciously.  Mr.  Wil- 
son is  unconsciously  one  of  the  most  accomplished 
actors  who  ever  trod  the  boards  of  that  great 
theater,  the  world.  His  performance  of  the  mod- 
ern Moses  descending  from  Mt.  Sinai  was  a  mas- 
terpiece of  acting.  He  played  the  role  of  the 
prophet  and  law-giver,  and  in  fact  he  was  neither.  He 
delivered  his  "Fourteen  Points" — in  which  he  had  been 
anticipated  by  Lloyd  George — with  a  priestly  unction 
which  deceived  the  world  as  to  their  true  authorship. 

[161] 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

His  assumption  of  Messianic  authority,  only  waiting 
for  a  crazy  world,  deafened  by  the  roar  of  the  cannon, 
to  hear  his  voice  and  authority,  was  wonderfully  effec- 
tive. At  times  he  played,  before  the  eyes  of  the  world, 
the  role  of  that  weary  Titan,  Abraham  Lincoln,  long 
before  Drinkwater  conceived  the  dramatic  possibilities 
of  the  part.  To  Mr.  Wilson  the  world  crisis  was  a 
drama  in  which  he  was,  Calvinistically,  predestined  to 
play  the  leading  role,  and,  for  this  reason,  he  saw 
every  great  problem  of  that  crisis  as  it  was  reflected 
in  the  mirror  of  his  own  prestige.  Always  he  was, 
consciously  or  unconsciously,  playing  a  part  which 
he  believed  should  be  the  leading  role.  A  great  am- 
bition, and  one  which,  as  the  event  proved,  was  not 
beyond  his  reach;  for,  representing,  as  no  previous 
American  ever  had  done,  the  unbounded  resources  of 
the  United  States,  he  was  in  a  position  to  impose 
his  terms  upon  the  world,  provided  that  those  terms 
concurred  with  the  best  traditions  of  his  own  country 
and  did  not  run  counter  to  the  increasing  purpose  of  the 
ages.  His  ambitious  but  vague  plans  failed  in  both 
respects. 

Woodrow  Wilson  is  the  son  of  a  clergyman.  He 
was  born  and  nurtured  in  the  environment  of  the 
Church.  And  not  of  an  ordinary  church,  but  of  a 
church  in  which  the  stern  discipline  of  John  Knox  still 
has  some  survival.  I  suspect  that  Mr.  Wilson  has  often 
reminded  himself  of  John  Knox. 

In  his  unbending  and  dogmatic  manner  of  maintain- 
ing his  policies  in  the  teeth  of  opposition,  the  spirit  of 
his  Calvinistic  training  is  manifest. 

If  such  was  Wilson's  heredity,  his  career  before  he 

' 


THE  APOSTLE  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

became  a  politician  was,  with  the  exception  of  the  few 
years  when  he  attempted  to  practice  law,  that  of  a 
teacher.  Pascal  said  that  if  Cleopatra's  nose  had  been 
an  inch  longer,  the  whole  history  of  the  world  would 
have  been  written  differently ;  and  if  Woodrow  Wilson 
(in  1882  a  member  of  the  firm  of  "Renick  &  Wilson, 
attorneys  at  law,"  of  Atlanta,  Georgia)  had  remained 
a  lawyer,  the  history  of  the  Peace  Conference  of  1918 
might  have  been  written  differently.  Even  if  he  had 
become  President  of  the  United  States  after  a  suc- 
cessful career  at  the  Bar,  he  would  probably  not  have 
been  the  unbending  and  tactless  master  of  affairs  that 
he  subsequently  became,  at  least  to  the  same  extent, 
for  if  there  is  one  profession  that  is  destructive  of  the 
spirit  of  posing,  it  is  that  of  the  Bar.  The  sharp  con- 
flict of  the  court  room,  where  a  lawyer  finds  his  level, 
and  even  if  he  overrides  his  adversary,  is  subject  to 
the  superior  power  of  the  court,  inculcates  a  certain 
spirit  of  savoir  faire  and  tolerance. 

Mr.  Wilson  became  a  teacher,  and  in  this  profes- 
sion his  congenital  tendency  to  pose  as  an  "I  am  Sir 
Oracle"  became  greatly  magnified;  for  the  professor 
in  the  class-room,  who  stands  on  a  platform  above  his 
pupils  and  speaks  with  superior  authority  and  intelli- 
gence, too  often  acquires  the  unconscious  habit  of  pos- 
ing as  the  embodiment  of  superior  wisdom.  The  peda- 
gogue immensely  increased  the  ex-cathedra  pose  of  the 
son  of  the  Calvinistic  Clergyman.  In  Mr.  Wilson's 
ritual  there  was  no  place  for  "nolo  episcopari" 

Leaving  Princeton,  Mr.  Wilson  thereupon  entered 
public  life,  and  neither  the  pulpit  of  the  church  nor 
the  lecture  platform  of  the  college  gives  a  greater 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

temptation  to  posing  than  the  theater  of  public  action. 
In  public  life,  each  man  always  has  two  personalities. 
The  first  is  that  which  he  really  is,  and  the  second  that 
which  he  seems  to  be  to  the  people.  Of  the  two,  so 
far  as  temporary  success  is  concerned,  the  second  is 
from  a  practical  standpoint  the  more  important. 
"Assume  a  virtue,  if  you  have  it  not"  is  the  beginning 
and  end  of  practical  politics.  To  create  an  impression, 
which  in  time  becomes  a  legend,  is  one  purpose  of  a 
statesman.  No  one  understood  this  better  than  the 
greatest  actor  of  all  time,  Napoleon.  He  had  no  need 
of  lessons  from  Talma. 

A  striking  evidence  of  this  distinguishing  trait  in 
Mr.  Wilson's  character  will  be  found  in  the  marked 
contrast  which  exists  in  his  style  when  he  is  standing 
on  the  ground  speaking  on  terms  of  familiar  intimacy 
with  his  fellows  and  when  speaking  on  a  pedestal.  In 
ordinary  conversation,  Mr.  Wilson's  English  is  clear, 
precise,  vigorous  and  unaffected.  No  one  can  readily 
mistake  its-meaning.  He  knows  what  he  wishes  to  say 
and  he  says  it  with  clarity  and  terseness.  When,  how- 
ever, Mr.  Wilson  ascends  the  platform  or  rostrum,  or 
speaks  ex-cathedra  in  one  of  his  formal  addresses  or 
official  messages,  his  style  shows  an  artificiality  of 
thought  and  expression  which  at  once  suggests  the  as- 
sumption of  a  pose.  He  is  often  so  obscure  that  men 
can  only  guess  at  his  real  meaning,  and  even  if  his  pur- 
pose is  generally  revealed,  the  precise  limits  of  his 
message  are  imperfectly  defined.  To  this  air  of  ob- 
scurity is  added  an  assumption  of  moral  authority  which 
reminds  us  of  Gratiano's  words:  "I  am  Sir  Oracle. 
When  I  ope  my  lips,  let  no  dog  bark." 

[164] 


THE  APOSTLE  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

An  interesting  parallel  has  often  been  drawn  between 
Mr.  Wilson  at  the  Paris  Conference  and  the  Czar 
Alexander  at  the  Conference  of  Vienna.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  there  is  no  real  parallel  between  them,  except 
in  the  barren  results  of  their  efforts.  The  Czar  was  a 
superstitious  mystic  Mr.  Wilson  is  a  clear-headed 
thinker  and  a  very  practical  statesman;  but  he  has 
preferred  to  make  his  appeal  to  the  imagination  of  men 
by  wrapping  himself  in  a  mantle  of  obscurity  and  play- 
ing the  role  of  an  inspired  prophet. 

If  this  theory  of  subconscious  posing  be  consistently 
kept  in  mind  in  reviewing  President  Wilson's  activities 
during  the  war,  much  of  his  record  will  be  intelligible 
that  would  otherwise  be  quite  unintelligible  and  contra- 
dictory. Thus,  when  the  cataclysm  came  in  August, 
1914 — the  greatest  moral  crisis  in  the  history  of  the 
world — Mr.  Wilson's  first  thought  was  that  he,  and 
he  alone,  would  do  the  thinking  for  the  American  peo- 
ple. He  said: 

"The  United  States  must  be  neutral  in  fact  as  well 
as  in  name  during  these  days  that  are  to  try  men's 
souls.  We  must  be  impartial  in  thought  as  well  as  in 
action,  must  put  a  curb  upon  our  sentiments  as  well  as 
upon  every  transaction  that  might  be  construed  as  a 
preference  of  one  party  to  the  struggle  before  an- 
other:9 

No  more  preposterous  idea  ever  influenced  a  respon- 
sible statesman  to  his  undoing  than  to  suppose  that,  in 
a  supreme  moral  crisis  which  went  down  to  the  very 
foundations  of  society,  a  hundred  millions  of  people, 
who,  of  all  people,  are  accustomed  to  the  exercise  of 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

independent  judgment,  would  remain  neutral  in  thought 
and  silent  in  expression.  As  Milton  said  of  another 
Majesty  "his  words  impression  left  of  much  amaze- 
ment." 

The  American  people  speedily  ignored  the  demand 
and,  outside  of  certain  racial  elements  in  America,  the 
overwhelming  judgment  of  the  American  people 
favored  the  cause  of  the  Allies. 

Unquestionably,  as  the  war  progressed  and  as  the 
varied  colored  diplomatic  papers  appeared  and  as  Mr. 
Wilson  slowly  chloroformed  the  conscience  of  the 
American  people  with  his  morally  stupefying  notes, 
public  opinion  did  become  at  first  confused,  and  then 
sharply  divided.  At  the  beginning  of  the  war,  when 
all  America  rose  in  frenzied  indignation  at  the  wanton 
murder  of  women  and  children  in  the  sinking  of  the 
Lusitania,  a  brave  and  sagacious  President  could  have 
led  the  American  people  into  the  war,  and  it  would 
have  successfully  ended  within  two  years  at  most. 
Von  BernstorfFs  testimony  on  this  point  is  very  con- 
vincing. He  knew,  for  he  had  every  reason  to  study 
the  state  of  the  public  mind.  He  tells  us  in  a  passage 
already  quoted  that  a  "nod"  from  Mr.  Wilson  at  that 
time  would  have  brought  America  into  the  war  and 
thus  saved  millions  of  lives  and  billions  of  treasure 
and  perhaps  Civilization  itself.  It  is  gratifying  to  have 
this  testimony  to  the  righteous  indignation  of  the 
American  people  at  the  murder  of  their  women  and 
children,  when  Wilson  apologists  still  tell  us  that  it 
was  not  he  who  then  failed,  but  the  American  people, 
and  that  it  was  his  wonderful  statecraft  that  made 
America's  final  intervention  possible.  Such  a  theory  is 

[166] 


THE  APOSTLE  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

a  libel  upon  the  American  people.  But,  a  year  later, 
the  pacifism,  which  Mr.  Wilson's  public  addresses  and 
diplomatic  notes  had  engendered  and  his  frequent  state- 
ment that  "with  the  objects  and  causes  of  the  war,  we 
are  not  concerned,"  etc.,  and  others  of  like  import,  had 
so  confused  the  judgment  of  the  American  people  and 
so  affected  their  spirit,  that  that*which  was  possible  in 
the  first  year  of  the  war  had  become  more  difficult,  but 
not  impossible,  for  there  was  never  a  time  in  the  whole 
crisis  that  the  American  people  would  not  have  sup- 
ported their  President,  if  he  had  bravely  urged  a  decla- 
ration of  war  in  behalf  of  America's  honor. 

Mr.  Wilson  had  chosen  his  role.  He  could  have  led 
the  country  into  the  war  at  the  beginning,  and,  had  he 
done  so,  millions  of  lives  would  have  been  preserved 
and  uncounted  billions  of  treasure  saved.  No  one  knew 
better  than  he  did  that,  after  the  sinking  of  the  Lusi- 
tania,  one  clear  and  forceful  utterance  from  his  elo- 
quent tongue  to  the  effect  that  "the  murder  of  Amer- 
ican women  and  children  on  the  high  seas  must  stop," 
would  have  rallied  a  substantially  united  people  behind 
him,  and  the  war  would  have  been  brought  to  a  reason- 
ably speedy  close.  When  did  the  American  people  ever 
fail  to  sustain  their  President,  when  he  championed 
their  honor? 

Either  on  his  own  volition  or  persuaded  by  the  syco- 
phants who  surrounded  him,  he  believed  that  his 
greater  glory  lay  in  dictating  the  world's  peace,  and, 
throughout  the  whole  war,  every  move  that  he  made 
on  the  chessboard  of  the  conflict  was  to  that  end. 

The  incredible  stupidity  of  the  German  Foreign 
Office,  induced  by  the  absolute  faith  of  the  Kaiser  in 


THE  PASSING  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

the  speedy  success  of  an  unrestricted  submarine  war- 
fare, prevented  Mr.  Wilson  from  carrying  into  effect 
his  plan  to  force  a  peace  conference  in  December,  1916. 

War  thus  being  forced  upon  him,  not  only  by  Ger- 
many's callous  pronunciamento  of  January,  1917,  but 
by  the  indignant  public  sentiment  of  America,  which 
had  grown  weary  of  repeated  and  unavenged  out- 
rages upon  American  women  and  children,  Mr.  Wilson, 
with  extraordinary  skill,  changed  his  pacific  program 
of  dictating  peace  to  the  more  warlike  role  of  a  mili- 
tant conqueror.  He  who  had  been  "too  proud  to  fight" 
suddenly  became  the  advocate  of  "force,  without  limit 
or  stint."  He,  who  had  said  that  "with  the  causes  and 
objects  of  the  war,  we  have  no  concern,"  and  that, 
stated  in  their  own  terms,  both  groups  of  belligerents 
were  fighting  for  the  same  principles,  suddenly  dis- 
covered in  the  war  aims  of  the  Allies  the  principles  of 
eternal  justice. 

While,  however,  Mr.  Wilson  changed  his  pose  of 
peace-maker  to  that  of  a  militant  conquerer,  he  had 
not  forgotten  his  greater  pose  as  the  peace  dictator. 
Without  consulting,  so  far  as  is  known,  any  one  ex- 
cept his  immediate  associates,  he  announced,  on  Janu- 
ary 18,  1918,  the  famous  "Fourteen  Points,"  which 
were  to  him  as  sacred  as  the  Ten  Commandments  were 
to  the  great  Jewish  law-giver.  Then,  after  bringing 
to  pass  a  premature  armistice,  against  the  judgment 
even  of  his  closest  friends,  he  made  his  grandiose  tour 
to  Paris,  in  the  hope  that  he  would  still  be  able  to  play 
the  leading  role  in  a  stupendous  drama.  Malvolio  did 
not  make  his  entrance  with  prouder  mien  or  more 
ingratiating  smile  than  Mr.  Wilson,  as  he  appeared 

[168] 


THE  APOSTLE  OF  THE  NEW  FREEDOM 

in  Paris  with  one  leg  cross-gartered  by  the  Fourteen 
Points  and  the  other  with  the  League  of  Nations. 

How  utterly  he  failed  is  now  a  matter  of  history. 
One  after  another  of  the  "Fourteen  Points"  was 
"niore  honored  in  the  breach  than  in  the  observance," 
but  this  did  not  prevent  the  President,  on  his  return 
to  America,  from  blandly  saying: 

"I  think  the  Treaty  adheres  to  the  Fourteen  Points 
more  closely  than  I  had  a  right  to  expect,  in  view  of 
the  difficulties  which  arose  and  the  great  number  of 
divergent  views  which  had  to  be  reconciled.  The 
Fourteen  Points  were  the  guiding  spirit  throughout, 
and  their  spirit  entered  pretty  much* into  everything 
that  was  done." 

If  this  represented  his  real  conviction,  he  is  almost 
alone  in  such  a  plain  misinterpretation  of  the  facts. 

Returning  to  the  United  States,  he  still  posed  as  a 
conqueror,  and,  with  affected  confidence,  submitted  the 
Covenant,  which  he  had  forced  into  the  Peace  Treaty 
against  the  wishes  of  his  European  associates,  to  the 
Senate  for  its  concurrence.  After  one  of  the  most 
notable  debates  which  ever  took  place  in  the  Senate 
and  which  recalls  the  best  traditions  of  the  Republic, 
the  revolutionary  Covenant  was  rejected. 

IWhen  was  an  American  President  visited  with  a 
like  humiliation? 

He  now  appeals  to  the  American  people  to  endorse 
a  course  which  has  gone  far  to  make  a  wreckage  of 
the  world's  peace.  I  predict  that  on  March  4,  1921, 
the  American  people  will  write  their  final  stage  direc- 
tion to  the  drama.  It  will  be : 

"Exit  Malvolio." 

[169] 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 


LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 
on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 

f       , 

REC'D  LD 

•: 
HIM       A    1QR1 

APR  9  7  '65  -10  AM 

..luiv.      L.     -.-••-  * 

13Jul'62jH 

PER  1  i  1969  °8 

'N  STACKS 

RECEIVED 

JUN  2  9  196? 

FEE   5'B9-11AV 

ftec'D  j 

_.         UOAN  DEPT. 

J(/L  g    10 

CO 

D£ 

UBRAPY  u( 

;E 

RrTC'D  LD 

APR  1  1  1963 

Y.b  66352 


